Full text of "Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology Vol.14"

See other formats

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 

CENTRAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL 
LIBRARY 


I Call No. 913.^205 J.E.fl. 

‘ 


D.G.A. 79. 





THE JOURNxVL 

OP 

EGYPTIAN ARCHxVEOLOGY 



ALL EIGHTS RESERVED 



THE JOURNAI. 


OF 

EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 



VOLUME XIV 







/ 


PUBLISHED BY 

THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY 

13 TAVISTOCK SQUARE, W.C. 1 

LONDON 

19B8 



CENTR Au. a " X ilGAli. 

L-i Sr /A i\ V> i\ vv > i 1 . 

Ao*. No Z.i 6 ZZ.j - 

D*u (/ . 9- S 

CUiKo. • 


^ ^ V./ ‘ 


/ 


PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN 


CONTENTS 


The Statues of Sexnemut and Menkheperre''- 
SENB IN the British Museum 

H. R. Hall 


PAGE 

1 

Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-law •'Ankhkhe- 

PRURE*" 

Percy E. Newberry 


... 3 

The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere 

Alan H. Gardiner 


... 10 

A Heart Scarab of the Mnevis Bull 

W. Spiegelberg ... 

. . . 

... 12 

Greek Sightseers in Egypt 

M. Rostovtzeft’ 


... 13 

Observations on the Chronology of the 
Roman Emperors in the Second Half of 
the Third Century 

Arthur Stein 


... 16 

Note on the Foregoing 

H. Mattingly 


... 19 

Chronological Pitfalls 

J. G. Milne 

... 

... 20 

On Egyptian Fish-names used by Greek 
Writers 

D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson 

22 

An Agricultural Ledger in P. Bad. 95 

M. Schnebel 


... 34 

An Ivory Sphinx from Abydos 

John Garstang 


... 46 

Who succeeded Ramesses IX-Neferkerei"? ... 

Giusejipe Botti ... 


... 48 

The Chronological Problems of the Twen- 
tieth Dynasty 

T. Eric Peet 


... .52 

Objects of Tut<'ankhamCn in the British 
Museum 

H. R. Hall 


... 74 

The New Ptolemaic Papyrus containing 
Parts of Iliad , xii, 128-263 

G. M. Bolling 


... 78 

The Sons of Tuthmosis IV 

Percy E. New'berry 


... 82 

An Egyptian Split Infinitive and the Origin 
OF the Coptic Conjunctive Tense 

Alan H. Gardiner 


... 86 

Notes on the Early History of Tin and 
Bronze 

A. Lucas ... 


... 97 

Mlscellanea 

Percy E. Newberry 


... 109 

Some Potsherds from Kassala 

J. W. Crowfoot 


... 112 

Note on the Sculptured Slab No. 15,000 in 
the Berlin Museum 

Percy E. Newberry 


... 117 



VI 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Five Leases in the Princeton Collection ... H. B. Van Hoesen and A. C. John- 
son 118 

Note ON AN Ancient Egyptian Figure ... Warren R. Dawson 126 

David George Hogarth H. R. Hall 128 

Bibliography : Graeco-Roman Egypt. A. Papyri 

(19-26-27) H. J. M. Milne, A. D. Nock, H. I. 

Bell, J. G. Milne, N. H. Baynes, 

F. de Zulueta, M. E. Dicker, 



R. McKenzie ... 

131 

Bibliography (1926); Ancient Egvpt 

Jean Capart 

159 

A Painted Terracotta Head in the British 

Mu.seum 

H. R. Hall 

209 

The Pig and the Cclt-animal of Set 

P. F. Newberry ... 

211 

Egyptian Nationalism under Greek and 

Roman Rule 

J. Grafton Milne ... 

226 

The Cemeteries of Abydos: Work of the 

Season 1925-26. I, Stelae 

H. Frankfort 

235 

Ptolemy II 

W. W. Tarn 

246 

Some Prehlstorio Va.ses in the British 

Museum and Remarks on Egyptian Pre- 

history 

Alexander Scharff 

261 

Suez and Clysma 

J. J. Hess ... 

277 

A Ramesside Royal St.atue from Palestine 

H. R. Hall 

280 

A Royal Stele of the New Empire from 

Galilee 

W. F. Albright and A1 

an Rowe . . . 281 

Three Ptolemaic Papyri 

C. C. Edgar 

... 288 

The Letters of Aahmose of Peni.ati .. 

S. R. K. Glanvillo 

294 

Silver in Ancient Times 

A. Lucas ... 

... 313 

A Latin Petition of Abinnaeus (Papyrus 

B.M. 447) 

Seymour De Ricci 

... 320 

A. G. K. Hayter, M.A., F.S.A 


... 323 

Notes and News 


180,325 

Notices of Recent Publications 


185,329 

List of Plates ... 


334 

List OF Illustr.ations IN the Text ... 


337 

Notices of Recent Publications, detailed list 


339 

Index 


340 







THE STATUES OF SENNEMUT AND 
MEAKHEPERRE'SENB IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 

By H. E. hall 


1 


With Plates i-iii. 

Fourteen years ago, in 1914, I published in Part v of Hicroghjphic Texts, etc., in the 
British Museum, PL 32, photographs of the three, then newly-acquired, stone figures of 
Sennemut or Senmut (Nos. 174, 1513) and ilenkheperre<'senb (No. 708) in the Museum, 
and in Plates 29-31 the texts of the figures of Sennemut and in Plate 33 those of that 
of Menkheperrecsenb. The three statues were exhibited in the Sculpture Gallery of the 
British Museum before the war and have been exhibited there ever since. But they do 
not seem to have attracted the attention that is their due, for I find that in the American 
Journal of Semitic Languages, XLiv, No. 1, October 1927, Mr. T. George Allen publishes 
a figure of Sennemut, in the Field Museum at Chicago, obtained by Dr. J. H. Breasted 
in 1925, which he says is the ninth statue of Senmut known to him (p. 49), whereas it 
is the eleventh known to us here. I am indebted to Mr. Allen’s courtesy for bringing 
the Chicago figure to my knowledge, and I hasten to make him and possibly others 
better acquainted with our British Museum figures of Sennemut than is apparently the 
case. I therefore republish in Plates i-iii photographs of the three statues already 
published in Hieroglyphic Texts, v, to which volume I refer readers for their inscriptions. 
The Chicago statue is unique in that it is the only standing figure known of Sennemut, 
as is also ours in that it is the only known figure of him sitting on a seat. In this 
sitting figure of ours (No. 174, PI. ii), Sennemut also holds the princess Neferurer in his 
arms. In No. 174 Neferurer (who here too wears the side-lock and also a beard, like 
Khonsu) is held tightly by her male nurse and enveloped in the folds of his long funerary 
robe, as in the squatting figures Berlin 2296 and Cairo 42,114, 42,115; whereas in the 
Chicago figure the whole of her is visible, seated in Sennemut’s lap almost as Harpokrates 
sits in the lap of Isis and as we see her also in the Cairo statue 42,116, which represents 
Sennemut seated on the ground. 

Menkheperrersenb’s statue (No. 708, PI. iii) closely resembles No. 174, except that of 
course there is no Neferurer in his case. Both statues are funerary, as is shown by 
the long Osirian garment worn and the formal, unfashionable wig (a conventional 
coiffure of the dead) in both cases, as well as by the hieratic seats on which both sit. 
And in his right hand Menkheperrersenb holds the curious sacral knot or sash (see also 
p. 76) which bears so close an analogy to the similar object of unknown though certainly 
religious import so often met with in the contemporary fre.scoes, etc., of Minoan Crete 
The two things are not identical, but they are much alike, and may have a common 
origin. Both figures have an inscribed plinth at the back, rising from the seat. 

1 See especially Evans, Palace of Minos, i, 430 ft'., and Nil.sson, Minoon-Miiceiiuean Religion, 137 ff. In 
Egypt the object was certainly sacral; iIeukhei)errC‘Cseub’s statue is purely funerary and religious in its 
intention, as is shown by the Osirian garment and formal wig worn (see above). 

Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


1 



o 


H. R. HALL 


In style and workmanship, although it generally resembles that of Sennemut, except 
that it is beardless and that the wig is not ribbed, Menkheperrecsenb’s statue is finer and 
better. The face is better sculptured than those of either Sennemut or the little princess ; 
the eyes of both are rather clumsily and staringly expressed, whereas Menkheperrecsenb’s 
are admirably rendered. Also his face is perfect, without a scratch, whereas Sennemut’s 
and Neferurec’s are both slightly marred, as is also that of the other figure of Sennemut 
(No. 1513, PI. i). No. 708 is indeed in beautiful condition, having only one slight chip on 
its surface. It gives the impression of being the work of a liner school than that of the 
Sennemut figures of half-a-century earlier (c. 1500 b.c., Menkheperrei'senb being c. 1440). 
The Chicago statue as well as our Nos. 174 and 1513 seem to have a touch of crudeness 
in comparison with it. Mr. Allen describes it as “summary” (p. 54). The portraits are 
not strongly characterized, except possibly originally in the case of No. 1513, which is 
marred ; the others seem purely conventional of the ushabti-type. 

The damage to the face of 1513 looks as if it had been inflicted purposely with a 
hammer. It is not an ordinary casualty. It resembles the (more severe) damage inflicted 
on the face of the statue of Hatshepsut discovered by 3Ir. Winlock at Der el-bahri 
[Bull. Md. Mus. N. y., 1928, ii, fig. 52, p. 46), which he considers to have been effected 
by kindling a fire on the face of the statue, in order to disintegrate the granite. The 
damage to our statue no doubt dates from the time of the supposed disgrace of Sennemut 
or his dainnatio memoriae after the death of Hatshepsut (or possibly before, according to 
Mr. Allen). On the other hand his name survives intact on both our figures, whereas on 
the Chicago statue it has been hammered out, though not so heavily as to render it 
illegible. On No. 174 it is spelt on No. 1513 on the Chicago figure 

without determinative (Allen, op. eit., 53). 

On both our figures, as on his, the name of Amun is untouched. That means 
that in the case of our two figures also, as in those of the Chicago figure, Berlin 
2296, Cairo 42,116, and Cairo 42,117 (in this last the god’s name has only suffered by 
accident), Sennemut’s statues were evidently cast out of the temple in which they stood 
(four of those known were found at Karnak, so that probably all, except the Berlin 
statue, were originally set up there) \ after his disgrace, since, as Mr. Allen points out, 
had they been in evidence at the time of Akhenaten’s heresy the name of Amun on them 
would certainly have been mutilated. But that “incensed royalty” did not entirely 
succeed in making Sennemut nameless is shown by his name being imtouched on our two 
statues. In the case of Menkheperrecsenb (No. 708), however, the name of Amun has 
been erased and afterwards restored. Menkheperrei'senb was never disgraced and his 
statues thrown out of the temple, so that Akhenaten got at him. 

No. 1513 (the squatting figure of Sennemut) is of red quartzite sandstone, and 
measures 21 ins. (53'5 cm.) in height ; No. 174 is of dark grey (“black”) granite, and 
measures 28 ins. (71 cm.) high ; No. 708 is of the same stone, and is 2 ft. 8 ins. (81’2 cm.) 
high. 

' This is said to have been found by d'Athauasi at Shekh ‘Abd el-Kumah, and .so belonged to 
Sennemut's tomb there (AVixlock, Bull. Jlet. Mus. M.F., 1928, ii, 56). ilr. Winlock, while noting that 
two of the Cairo statues at least are from Karnak, suggests, loc. oil., that the British Museum figure.s are 
both from the tomb. That I doubt: it is much more likely that they were found at Karnak. We have 
not, by the way, t/co statues like Berlin 2296, as Mr. iTinlock seems to think. There is only one holding 
Aeferiu'cC and this is not squatting. 








AKHENATEX’S ELDEST SON-IX-LAW 
AXKirKKEPRl RE^ 


By PEECY E. NEWBERRY 
With Plate iv, fig. 1 and Plates v, vi. 

At the foot of the hill of the Shekh ‘Abd el-Kurnah at Thebes, and some little 
distance to the left of the tomb of Ramose, the vizier of Aiuenojjhis R', is the small 
mortuary chapel of the itrft-priest of Amun, Pere^. This tomb is numbered 1:19 iu 
Gardiner-Weigall, Topographical Catalogue, where it is doubtfully attributed to the 
reign of Tuthmosis lY. It is certainly not earlier than that king, nor is it later than 
the reign of his successor Amenophis III. But whatever the precise date of tin' tomb 
may be, its chief interest lies in a hieratic graffito written upon the left-hand jamb 
of the entrance to an inner chamber. Two years ago I traced this graffito and 
Mr. Harry Burton kindly photographed it on a large scale for me so that the inscrip- 
tion could be studied at leisure. M}’ facsimile is reproduced iri Pis. v and vi togethei' 
with a transcription made by Dr. Gardiner in 1912. Dr. Gardiner appends a translation 
and some notes at the end of this paper (p. 10). It wa-< Bouiiant who first drew 
attention to this graffito. In a note printed in the Rec. dc trac.. xiv, 70, he s;iys that it is 
composed of two parts, “la seconde formee de vingt-cim^ lignes renfermant une priere a 
Ammon composee par le pretre et scribe tre.s inutile, recriture t'tant 

frequemment effacee. La premiere partie, qui ne comprend quo deu.x lignes. nous doime 
la date d’un roi jusqu'a present inconnu. Ellc c.st ainsi coneue: 



Le roi Nefer-nefru-Aten n’est connu que par cette inscription. II est probable qu'on doit 
le placer parmi les pharaons, appelus communement hereti([ue.s, qui ont regiie entre 
Amenophis III et Horemheb. C'est sans doute un de ces Cherres ou Acherres que nous 
donnent les listes grecques et qu’on n’a pu encore identifier. Peut-etre faut-il voir dans 

1 In the British iluscurn (No, llSe, Hall, HiirmjJpplai: Te.'ts Jruin [Jgi/i'tuin ,SViA<.', the BritiPi 

Mijseum, Part vil, PI. 7j there is a lintel from the tomb of a Pere which w.i^ found by Robert IMoiid in 
19(J5 near Tomb No. 139 at Thebes. The inscription.s on tlic lintel describe Pere a> ^ | j 

and f'' I'CnoK, G'n'dc to Uf Egyiition Onllerii-s {Bmlptvre), 1909, 119, tlii.s Pere i.s .^,■lId to 

be an “Overseer of the (Iranarics of Amen-Ra at Thebe.s," but no such title occurs upon the lintel 1 It is 
doubtful whether this Pere is the same as the one of Tomb No. 1.39. 

- The priest and scribe is Pawah son of Atefscnb, not Atefsenb as Bouri.int assorts. 


1—2 



4 


PERCY E. NEWBERRY 


ce prince le fils de Thoutmes IV que Lepsius signale dans son Konigsbuch (No. 370) et 
qui porte, lui aussi, le nom de ® .Q,-” 

In 1894 SclieiP published copies of most of the hieroglyphic inscriptions in Pere’s 
tomb, but referred only briefly to the graffito, and made no effort to copy it. He simply 
says that it was written “par le pretre et scribe Atef-senb” (thus repeating the error 
of Bouriant), and that it was dated in the third year “d’un roi Nefer-nefru-Aten 

(® l ^ C ^ foot-note to the reading of the first cartouche, he 

remarks, “M. Bouriant lit 0# je crois ma lecture certaine.” Maspero ^ accepted 

Schell’s reading and stated that it seemed to him to represent a transitional form of the 
protocol of Amenophis IV, and not the name of a new king. Petrie® also agrees with 
Scheil and says “probably this is an early variant of Akhenaten’s name which he after- 
wards transferred to his queen on marriage.” 

In Gauthiee, Lime des rots, ii, 344, is the following entry: 



No query-mark is given to any of the signs, but in a footnote we read, “ Bouriant avait 
lu le cartouche-prenom | rapprochait ce roi du fils de Thoutmfisis IV 

. La correction de | en | par P. Scheil est surement exacte, car, en hieratique, le 
signe ^ n’est jamais ecrit verticalement^.” Gauthier continues “plusieurs hypotheses 
sont suggerees par le second cartouche; nous avons la, ou bien un roi nouveau, Atonou- 
nofir-nofru-mer-Atonou, different d’Amenhotep IV (Bouriant), ou bien une masculinisation 
de la reine, femme d’Amenhotep IV, analogue a celle qui nous est connue pour 
Hatshepsouit, ou bien enfin une forme intermediaire du protocole d’Amenhotep, entre 
I’ancien et le nouveau protocole (Maspero). C’est cette derniere opinion qui me parait 
etre la bonne. Plus tard le roi transfera ce nom, abandonne par lui, a la reine 
Tadoukhipa, son epouse (Petrie, History, n, 227).” 

Davies in this Journal (ix, 132) alludes to the graffito, and points out that 
Gauthier’s addition “meryaten'’ seems “totally unfounded,” and the “grounds for the 
rejection of the reading | quite untenable.” He further notes that “Schell’s reading is 
out of the question, the wish having been father to the thought.” Gardiner supported 
Davies in reading | with Bouriant, and Davies further notes “perhaps might be read 
if one was pushed to it, but the other reading is certainly the prima facie reading.” 

The clue to the correct reading of the first cartouche was given last year by 
Howard Carter. We were discussing certain problems relating to the family of 
Akhenaten when he drew my attention to the inscriptions upon a box that he had 
found in the tomb of Tutrankhamun. These inscriptions he has kindly allowed me to 
publish here from copies made by Gardiner in 1923. On the top of the box is a vertical 
line of hieroglyphs reading as shown on p. 5: 

1 Scheil, Mmioires de la Mission areheologiqiie franmise au Caire, tome v, partie ii, 588. 

- Maspero, , 'Struggle of the Nations, ed. 1896, 317, ii. 2. 

2 Petrie, History, n, 227. 

* This, of course, is inaccurate, for the |-sign is very often written vertically in hieratic, especially in 
cartouches, e.g., in the prenomen of TuthinosLs I (Petrie, Medvin, PI. sxxiii, line 7) and in the jirenomen 
of Amenophis II (Proe. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xxx, 272, with plate). 



AKHEN ATEN’S ELDEST SON-IN-LAW ''ANKHKJIEPLURE^ 


Here we have (1) the full titulary of Akhenatcn 
followed by (2) that of Ankhkhepruref with the nomeii 
Nefernefruaten Mery-Uanrei", and (3) the name and titles 
of the Great King’s-Wife, ilerytateu. On a knob on the 

top of the box there is the prenomen of I O ^ 

“ Ankhkheprurei", beloved of Xeferkhepruree.” On another 
knob on the adjoining side of the box is his nomeji 

' Nefernefruaten, beloved of Uanrei"." 


4C 


f 




n, 


ru 






4 


1 i i 1 

\ 





t 'A 

1 / 









kN' 


H 



( :■ ■ 


' ri 


/ h 

1, 



Immediately I saw this inscription I recognizer I that 
Nefernefruaten “beloved of Uanree” must be the king 
of the graffito of Tomb No. 139 at Thebes; he was, 
therefore, not a new Pharaoh, but the well-known luis- 
band of Akhenaten’s eldest daughter Herytaten. and the 
brother-in-law of Tutrankhamun. This young king with 
his consort is figured in the tomb of lleryrec II at 
El-‘Amarnah^, and bezels of finger -rings bearing one or 
other of his cartouches were found by Petrie- in 1892 
on the site of the city Akhetaten. The prenomen is the 
name Ankhkheprurec, sometime.s without epithet and 
sometimes with an epithet “beloved of Uanrec,” or 
“beloved of Neferkheprurec.” The nomen or Son-of- 

Ref-name has, as it now appears, two forms. At El-‘Amarnah the form is Semenkhkarer- 
Zeserkhepru. At Thebes, on the box from Tutrankhamun's tomb and in the graffito 
from the tomb of Pere, the form found at El-‘Amarnali is replaced l)y Nefernefruaten 
“beloved of Uanrer.” The epithets connecting the young king with Akhenaten, and tlie 
association with that king’s daughter Mervtaten, leave not the slightest doubt that the 
two forms of the nonien belong to one and the same Pharaoh, namely the obscure 
successor of Akhenaten and predece.s.sor of Tutrankhamun, the son-in-law of the former, 
and brother-in-law of the latter. 

There has been some dispute about the correct reading of the nomen in what is 
apparently its earlier form. Unfortunately the cartouches in the tomb of i\I<‘rvrer II at 
El-‘Amarnah were destroyed by native robbers in the eighties of last century. Davies 3, 
who has published the scenes and inscriptions of this tomb, writes, “For the King's 
(cartouches) we must have recourse to the four copies, which unfortunately give as many 
readings for the personal name. There i.s little doubt, however, that the reading of 
Lepsius, Se-aa-ka-ra-zeser-kheperu. must be adopted, as the others are only imperfect 
readings of this. A squeeze exists among the papers of L’Hote [Papiers, xviii, 1), and 
though the third sign is broken, aa (Cf) is much the most satisfactory reading. It appears 
that the state of the cartouche was due to time and rough cutting, not to mutilation, 
and that it was fairly legible to a practised eye. The two rings of this king (Pf.trik. 
Tell el Amarna, PI. xv, 103-4) cannot shake this evidence, since each suggests a different 
hieroglyph.” In spite of these remarks of Davies I cannot admit the reading c/ in the 
cartouche in the tomb of Mervrer II, nor do I agree that the copies of the cartouches of 


’ Davikm, t'/ a iiiiii-iia, II, I’l. xii. 

- Petrie, T< /1 el AiiKirim, PI. xv. 
' D.win-i, op. rit., II, 44, 11. 1. 



6 


PERCY E. NEWBERRY 


f 


the finger-rings suggest different readings. I give in Fig. 1, a-d, the four existing copies of 
the cartouches in MeryreC’s tomb. The sign | , it will be seen, exists only in the copy of 
Lepsius 1 (made in June, 1845), and as his fifth sign is obviously wrong (he gives v-o in 
place of %J), his copy cannot be depended upon for accuracy. Hay’s copy^ (a), made 
about 1830, is quite indefinite. Nestor L’Hote® (1839) blunders badly (6), giving 
Prisse d’Avennes* (1843) gives the hieroglyph |, which shows that the sign appeared to 



c Fig. I. d 


him to be broader above than below (c). Lepsius’s | might easily be a careless copy of 
a 'i'-sign {mnh) with a long blade (d). But the finger-ring bezels are quite conclusive 
(see Fig. 2). Davies had only the two examples published by Petrie before him, but 
I have notes of seven, and they all clearly give V mnh, not | c/. There can be no ques- 
tion that this Son-of-Re<'-name should be read Semenkhkarec, not Saakarec. 

The graffito in Tomb No. 139 at Thebes is important in other ways. It records the 



Fig. 2. Scale J , 


highest, indeed, the only, date of the king’s reign — the year three — and it proves that 
the cult of Amun was flourishing at Thebes when the graffito was written. Further it 
shows that Ankhkhepruref was then a devotee of Amun, for the wf^-priest Pawah, for 
whom the hymn was written, bore the interesting titles (1) “Scribe of the Divine 
Offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheprurec at Thebes,” and (2) “Scribe of the 
temple of Amun in the (mortuary?) temple of Ankhkheprurgr.” Pawah’s brother, the 
scribe who actually wrote the hymn, was also attached to the same temple. Of this 
building no other record has yet been brought to light. 

1 L., B., Ill, 99. 

2 British Museum Add. MS. 29,847, foil. 63, 64. 

3 See his Fapiers, tome xi, f. 14, in the Bibliotheque Natinnale, Paris, 

■* Prisse d’Avenxes, Monuments egyptiens, .3. 






AKHENATEN’S ELDEST SUN-IN-LAW "ANKHKllEPUUKE^ 7 


In 1891 Petrie {Tell el Amarna, 12) suggested that Akheiiaten’s successor Semeiikh- 
karer “appears to have been associated in the kingdom with his fathcr-iu-law,” basing 
this supposition on the fact that the young king bore the epithets "beloved of 
Neferkheprurei" ” and “beloved of Uanref,” and on another page (op. cit., -13) he speaks 
of Akhenaten’s son-in-law as the “probable co-regent."’ Maspero, two years later, 
referred to the scene of Semenkhkarec and Merytaten in the tomb of Meryrec II, saying 
that the young king and his wife “are represented by the side of Akhenateii with the 
protocol and attributes of royalty,” and speaks of "this double reign” {Struggle of the 
Nations, ed. 1896, 331, ii. 1). But he is inaccurate in his description, for Akhenateii is 
not figured bg the side of the young king and his consort, but on a different wall of the 
tomb. The inscrijitiou on the box discovered by Carter in the tomb of Tutfankhamun 
is really the first definite evidence relating to a co-regency that had long been suspected. 

Carter has also drawn my attention to a remarkable stela in the Berlin Museum 
(Xo. 17,813) (see PI. iv) which has always been supjiosed to represent Akhenateii and 
his t^ueen Xetertiti, but, as Carter points out to me, the double crown worn by the one 
figure and the hprs-ciown worn by the other make it clear that we have here two kings, 
and not a king and his consort. The two royal personages here are undoubtedly 
Akhenaten and his co-regent Semenkhkarer. The intimate relations between the Pharaoh 
and the boy as shown by the scene on this stela recall the relationship between the 
Emperor Hadrian and the youth Antinous. The epithets "beloved of Uanrec” and 
“beloved of Neferkheprurer” are also remarkable^, and so is the name Xefernefruaten, 
“Beauty of the Beauties of Aten,” which, originally borne by Akhenateii's queen 
Xefertiti, was afterwards given to the boy-king. In regard to this love of Akhenaten 
for the youth it may be pointed out that Gunn- and Woolley noticed a very remarkable 
fact about Queen Xefertiti at El-Hawatah which perhaps has some bearing on this 
intimate relationship between the king and the youth. At El-Hawatali, says Woolley 
“ as nowhere else, the queen's name has in nearly every case been carefully erased and that 
of her eldest daughter, Merytaten, written in palimpsest U 2 >on the stone, her distinctive 
attributes have been blotted out with cement, her features re-cut and her head enlarged 
into the exaggerated skull of the princess royal. This alteration is most thoroughgoing 
in the case of the little temple and the island kiosks — a group of buildings which seem 
to have been called the ’Shadow of EeC; in the entrance hall it is limited to the more 
conspicuous places, but the intention clearly is the same. The ownership or patronage 
of the precinct was transferred from mother to daughter either during the former's life- 
time or on her death. But Xefertiti, if alive, could hardly have agreed to so public an 
aiiront, nor would her death have been seized upon by so devoted a husband as an 
occasion to obliterate her memorials; are we to suppose that things were not so happy 
as they seemed in the royal household, and that a quarrel so serious as to lose the 
queen her position put an end to the idyll which had long been the standing theme of 
the court artists!” On another page® Gunn refers again to the same subject and 
remarks that “we are driven to one of two theories to exjilain the facts; (n) the queen 
died, and was no longer deemed to require her ‘Shade of Rec’..., or (6) she fell into dis- 
grace or in some other way ceased to play her previous part in the royal family, and 

' A woman of this period Ixjrc the following interesting titles : 0 yy n. ; she was obviously 

a concubine of Akhenaten (Lei:, rain, Auiudes du Serrice, x, lUS). 

- Peet- Woolley, The City of AUteautca, 123. 

^ Op. cit., loo. 



8 


PERCY E. NEWBERRY 


that the place was then handed over to her eldest daughter.” The exact date of the 
disappearance of Nefertiti from the scene of history is not known, but it must be placed 
some time after the twelfth regnal year of Akhenaten, for a scene in a private tomb at 
EI-‘Amarnah (Davies, El Amarna, ii, PI. 37; cf. iii, PI. 13) shows that she was then 
associated with the king in a state ceremonial. 

There is probably yet another monument which shows Semenkhkarec by the side of 
his father-in-law Akhenaten. In 18-54 Hekekyan Bey, while digging in the neighbourhood 




of the great prostrate figure of Ramesses II at Memphis, discovered some fragments of 
sculptures that dated from the time of the El-‘Aniarnah kings One piece, which is now 
in the Museum of the University of Sydney, Australia, has an inscription upon it which 
records a temple of the Aten at Memphis’. A second fragment of sculpture (see Fig. 3) 
shows the young king holding in his hand an ostrich feather fan and wearing the double 

^ Sir Charles Xicholsox, Aegyptwcn, London, 1891, llTseg'. I had suppo.sed that all the blocks 
figured by Xicholson were in the Museum of the University of Sydney, N.S.W., but Professor Woodhouse 
of that University inform.^ me that only the fragment mentioning the temple of Akhenaten at Memphis 
(Nicholson, op. cit., 134, PI. 3) i.s pi-cserved there. I have to thank the Honble. H. D. McIntosh for sending 
me a photograph of the monument. 

- Nicholson, op. cit., 2. 


AKHENATEN’S ELDEST SON-IN LAW ‘’ANKIIKIIEl’LUKE'' D 


crown, his brow being surmounted by the uraeus: in front of him we see the tdrearni and 
part of the flowing garments of a much larger figure that obvioush- represented anotlu'r 
king. Borchardt^ has rightly interpreted this scene a.s showing Akhenaten and his 
co-regent Semenkhkarei'. A third slab of sculpture<l stone (see Fig. I). found also by 
Hekekyan Bey at Memphis, gives the lower parts of three cartouches whicli enn oidy be 
restored thus-; 



In these sculptured blocks we have, tlierid'ore. evidence' tiuit Semeid^hk.irec erected 
a building to the Aten at Memphis for it is inconceivable that these blocks of stoni' 
should have been brought down to ileiuphis from El-'Anuirnah. They formed j)art of a 
pavement “below another pavement" that itself was seven feet under the surface of 
the soil. 

' Z'‘ltsclu'. f. (///. I.V, :i0. 

- Nicholson rightly rit . 12i I'cviyni/eit tli it tlie cartoiii'licv of thi^ -l.ili cave tli.- unite ol 
AnklikliepruvC'C, thuuyh he 'iippoM'd that the third e irroiiehe v.a' that o| (tneeii Tii 


Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 



10 


THE GKAFFITO FKOM THE T03IB OF FERE 

By ALAN H. GAEDINEE 
With Plates v, vi. 

Professor Newberry’s interesting article, with the conclusions of which I am entirely 
in accord, gives me an excuse for publishing my transcription, made in 1912 and 
re-collated in 1923, of the graffito in the tomb of Pere, Plates v and vi exhibit this 
alongside Professor Newberry’s copy of the hieratic. That there are slight discrepancies 
between the two — discrepancies which it seemed desirable to preserve as the testimony 
of two independent pairs of eyes — is due to the condition of the original, brilliantly 
legible in some places but faint to the point of invisibility at others. The extreme 
“ spottiness ” of the text is far less the result of time than of the failure of the scribe to 
fill his reed with ink often enough. If I grasp the allusions of this fervent hymn to 
Arnun aright, it was written on behalf of a blind man Pawah by his brother Thay or 
Bathay, and thus is an early example of that class of humble petitions for help which 
Jlr. Gunn described so sympathetically in an earlier volume of this Journal (iii, 81-94). 

I must confess I was a convinced advocate of the reading Aakhepruref (with | in- 
stead of -y) for the king’s prenomen until Professor Newberry showed me the error of ray 
ways. The evidence he has collected leaves no room for doubt, and so far as I can see, 
both from his transcript of the hieratic and from photographs he has lent me, the dis- 
puted sign in the four occurrences of the prenomen is practically identical with the certain 
j in y g” of 1. 13. This particular problem of the Akhenaten age may therefore be re- 
garded as finally solved. 

The hymn cotitains some queer spellings and some obscure phrases, but is fairly in- 
telligible wherever the writing can be read. The following is my rendering: 

(1) r ear 3, third month of inundation, day 10. The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, 
Lord of the Two Lands, ’’Anlilikhepruref beloved of [NeferJcheprurevTi^, (2) the Son of Kef 
Nefernefruaten beloved of Wan[ree'l'\. 

(3) Giving praise to Am an, prostration before Onnophris, (4) by the wecb-pnesl, scribe 
of the divine ojferings of Arnun in the House of AnkhkhepriireC (5) in Thebes, Pawah, born 
of lotefsonb. He says: — (G) My heart desireth to see thee, thou lord of the shawab-rtees, 
when (7) thy throat taJceth the northwind. Thou givest satiety u'ithout{]) (8) eating, thou 
givest ebriety without [1) drinking. (9) My heart desireth to see thee. My heart rejoices, 
0 Aniun, (10) thou champion{l) of the poor man. Thou art the father of the (11) motherless, 
the husband of the widow. (12) Agreeable it is the pronunciation of thy name. It is (13) like 
the taste of life. It is like the taste of bread to the child. (14) a loincloth to the naked. 

{Thoul^ art like the taste of. -wood (15) in the season of the heat. Thou art like (16) 

ivith a father of his Thou, art like the taste of. (17) the Ruler, the breath {of 

freedom) to a [man'\ who has been in prison. Peaceful is (18) the man of virtue 

(19) Turn thyself {1) to us, thou lord of eternity! Thou wast here ere (20) {aught) had 

come into existence. Thou art here, when they are Thou causest me to see a darkness 



Plate 






feOS‘f§nOij243)'” Eits-i ■• 







yr f\»t ritom. JoT^ sv 


lu. 




«■ ’ s 


m " ^ 


16 


M J'S i:^/6Ti IS-b = 

iK.;!'»"a^feb_t„!ii^ra = r~ i - * 

I'i; * Hi 2^^ 2^'4 

iV, 



4 u ^tr> 2.12. 1 1 



-H H ki X.¥ (HI 5t A^ffCs }(>it .0 

<=^*, ' '///' 7 r . , , , / 

nj; 4///// LV ■ ^ ■> n 

I \ ■=!. 2. ii Xm 1 ^3 II 

1 tx 4f 6 1 41- )-2 -f^r 

s Htt, 1 V- li\ 4 '<'■'<<, % ;- W;/.., 


Hieratic graffito from the tomb of Fere at Thebes, 11. i-i8. 

Sralr of hit •'•tto'. mfher more thou \. 





Plate VI. 




I 1 1 I 




□ a_ft o 


°^%^ZYi4}m,V>-^ 




!4 vo/on/^/ 
-9 U ;/xr 


li •?/!!. 


*9 

■ft f(l 

•^/v; " 


.. '“',r 




fif°XQZ(^fe“9~n[irh3> - 

-Z.T7.irCPi,illUX 3« 

f 1 37 






-U ig>''oLl; 2^ 

'^"■■iinunA- 


Hieratic graffito from the tomb of Pere at Thebes, 11 . 19-33. 

Srnl*f of hicf'ftf i>\ t'ntht'r nmr*' thon i. 



THE (TUAEFiTO FROM THE TOME. oF FERE 


I 1 


(21) of tJiij giving. Illumine for me, llutl 1(1) mag see tliee{(). .Is tlig .soul endureth. (22) 
and as tlig beautiful, beloved face endarctlt. thou sJiaU cotne fro)ii afar. {2'A) granting that this 
servant, the scribe ^yah, mag sec thee, (rive (21) to him "Enduring is ReC. enduring is 
Rec!” Verilg, the tvorship of thee is good, ('lo) (> Amiln, thou lord great to seek if onlg he 
be(i) (fd) found. Turn awag fear. Place jog (27) in the hearts of men. Jogful is tin: man 
(28) that sees thee, 0 Amun. He is in festival everg dag. 

For the sold «/ (29) the v^ech-prie.st. the .scribe of the temple <f Amun in the House of 
AnkhkheprureC, (30) Puivah, born of lotefsonb. To thg soul! Apend (31) a huppg dag in 
the midst of thg fellou'-toirnsnicn ! (32) His brother, the outline draughtsman . Bathag(t) [of\ 
(33) (tJie) House if Ankhkheprurec. 


XOTES. 


1. Tlie epithet aftei' the name Ankhkheprurec is mifortuiuitely illegible. What I saw 
in the original agrees pretty well with what Frofessor Xewbeny .shows in his facsimile 
of the hieratic. 


7. Emend 


. In this and the next line we might conceivablv read r bi, 


in 


the place of eating'’ or "drinking,'’ but the sense is infinitely more sati.sfactory if biv is 
taken as equivalent to the old negation The rendering "without" must somehow 
be right, in my opinion, but the grammatical explanation is diilicult. Below in 19--20. 
jAjsp F"". appears to be the equivalent of the old n sW'/d/ construction with subject 
omitted (Gramm.. § 402), cf. -s- ^ i-i ' _ " in a very similar context. Theb. Tombs 
Series, iv, 37. In our context we should have expected rather ^ , for it is now clear 
that the relation of Late Egyptian J__^ and is the same as that of Middle Egyptian 
j.- and 


-- 1 


12. In ndm sn the [ironoun ^ , is a miswriting of anticijiiating the subject pi 
dm rn-k. 

19. Perhaps for I'w (or f'mR) tiv n-n. There is a phrase like this in an obscure con- 
text Berlin 23077. 11 aptid Eeman, Grabsteinc aus der thebanischen Graberstadt in Sitiungs- 
berichte d. Berl. Akad.. 1911. 

20. "Thou causes! me to see a darkness of thy giving is a commonplace of the 
stelae tramslated bv Gunn (see above) and collected in the article named in tlie last note. 

22. Cf. = ^ote on 19). 

25. Lit. ‘The lord great of seeking him in finding him." 

27. Nins is a puzzle. Can it be an early example of the predicative adjectives in- 
troduced by ni, Coptic u.x-. like y. jj 17, L, Zeitschr.j. ag. Spr ., xi.iv, 1091 In any 

case, the element ns is for rs "joyful.” Hr "face,” "person'’ has been rendered as "I.” 


1 The Ji.'^eU'.sicii; hy Pro!i-.-ei' Erin.iii in ZR/.-ehr. J "j. .Uj.r., I., 10H-7 f.a- to tin-, eon- 

elu.-^ion, but I do not think he hr.' e.xpre.s'ed the wlnle truth as n-e.inls .unegcoTai, .un^Tqco, rTi and 
.CmwpcwtM. The two funner I t.ike to he derived from n i>hr sJin ,ind /< pa fhtm respot tii ely, but some 
confusion of tlie.so with the more orilinary Late Egyiiti.in form' Jj .iieqcmTM and 
(pessil'ly pi'tPiiouneed qctuTM; h.is led to the substitution of a wlmlly spjiriou.s im- 
perative .Ctneip, .Cinp fu' 



A HEART SCARAB OF THE MNEYIS BULL 


By W. SPIEGELBERG 
With Plate iv. Fig. 2. 

It has long been known that the Egyptian funerary ritual treated the deceased 
sacred animals in the same way as the human dead. The Apis and Mnevis bulls were em- 
balmed like men, and their funerary outfits, including the sarcophagus and the funerary 
gifts, were not much different from those of the Egyptian king or noble. We know that 
in the Eighteenth Dynasty a cat was provided with a Canopic box [Ttee. cle trav., xiv, 
17-1), and that in the Nineteenth Dynasty the dead Apis bull was provided with Canopic 
vases 1 and even with shawabti figures^ to take his place in husbandry in the other 
Avorld. 

I owe to Mrs. Grant Williams the kind permission to publish here a unique scarab of 
brownish quartzite, now in the Toledo (U.S.A.) Museum of Art, which proves that even a 
heart scarab was provided for the sacred animals. The inscription® on the bottom of the 

scarab shown in the figure reads p[«] “thy heart 

belongs to thee, 0 Osiris Mnevis,” referring of course to Chapter XVI of the Book of the 
Dead. ' N “chapter of giving the heart to N.” The Mnevis bull is designated by 

the epithet “Osiris” as the dead bull (Oo-opo/jLvevi<; Serap. Pap.), the contrary of the 
Mr-wr mh, “the living Mnevis,” who was fed in the Mnevis sanctuary at Heliopolis. 
Thus there can be no doubt that the scarab belonged to the mummy of a Mnevis bull, 
who needed after his death this magical weapon in the realm of Osiris just as did 
any human being. No doubt the object comes from the Serapeuin of the Mnevis bulls 
in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis, from which site so many monuments have found 
their way to the dealers' shops in Cairo in recent years. 

Another Mnevis scarab, though not a heart scarab, published in Petrie, Heliopolis, 
PI. xxxvi, is noAv in the Egyptian Museum at Manchester (No. 5413). It is of blue 
faience and has upon its base a bull. Miss Crompton tells me that according to the 
Museum inventory its provenance is Heliopolis (not Kafr Ammar), and this makes it 
probable that the bull represented may be the Mnevis. 

1 At.VKiETrK, Serapcnm de Mciiiphis, PI. 1 tf. 

' Op. '-it., Pl>. 7. 11, 1!) ; some of them show a bull’s head. 

" It .seems that the iiiseription is not qiiite finished; whether my restoration at the end i.s right may 
bo doubtful. 



GREEK SIGHTSEERS IN E(iYRT 


By M. KOSTOVTZEFF 

The Zetiou papyri are inexluuisiilile. After many sur])rises a letter ol Apollcniios tellinp 
Zeiioii to get ready for the visit of two distinguished parties of foreigners who were coming 
to see the wonders of Fayyiim (H. Inius Bell, Syitthuhie Osloen^vs, v, 1927, Iff. of the 
reprint) ! Two parties, both of them very interesting indeed. One — the Bewpoi of Argos, 
the other — the ambassadors of Paerisades, king of Bosporos. Let me say a few words on 
both of them. 

Bell in his excellent comni(‘nt.s has not noticecl that we have an excellent ])arall('l to the, 
dewpoL of Argos in the famous Fudoxos of Cyzicus, a Columbus of anti(piity, the nna'chant- 
explorer who was for a while in the service of Ptolemy Fuergetes 11. Posidonios (.Jacojsv, Fr. 
Gr. Hist..S7 F 2S, 10) in speaking at length of the romantic and fascinating .story of Fudoxos 
says as follows: dfidprupa Si ravr elvai Kai riva Kv^tKtjroi'. Otnpov k al 

(TIT ovho<^o p ov Tov tCov Kop.6 Loiv dyu)i’o<;, eXOeli’ efs' W'yvTrroi' taropei Kara toi’ SevTepov 
iLvep'yeT7]V. crva-raOrjvai, Se Ka'i tw jSacnXel Kal rol<{ irep'i avTov. Kal pdXtara Kara tous' 
uvaTTXovi TOV NetAou d a V pa CTT i K 0 1’ dvra to)v tot7iko)v ihimpdruiv dpa ko'i ovk diraLStv- 
Tov. It is exactly the same situation as in the case of the Oeojpo’i of Argos. And of course 
Fudoxos's real reason for coming was not to take part in the celebration of the dyd>ve< or 
to see the sights but some diplomatic mission under the ])retext of such OewpiaK In ihe 
case of Argos and of Ptolemy II this is evident. Ptolemy tried by every means in his 
power to stir up the Greek citie.s against Antigonos Gonatas both before and after the 
battle of Cos. And the Greek cities greatly needed the grain and the help of Philadelpho,s. 

And now Paerisades and his ambassadors ' What kind of relations bad he with Ptolemy! 
Let me remind the reader who Paerisades was and what woe the conditions in which he 
lived”. Paerisades was the last in the line of the glorious kings of Bosj)oros who made the 
city of Bosporos aiul the Bosporan kingilom in the Crimea and in the Taman Peninsula 
strong and rich. I say the last not because he was the last of the Spartocids. but the ‘-last 
glorious’’ since after his death (exact date unknown, after 2.')n u.c.)® troubled times begin 
for the Bosporan kingdom. 

The Spartocids’ mission was to create in the south of Russia a strong and ellicient .state 
which could stand on its own feet, independent of the Scythians, the forimu suzerains of 
the Greek cities of the Black Sea. The means for carrying out thi.s mission and keeping 
alive the fire of Greek civilization in this remote corner of the world were su])plied to the 
archons or tyrant-s, later, at least since Eumclos, kings of the Bosporus, not so much by 

^ The c.a^e of ^liews tluit the O^oypoi of Ai'gos did conic }>ur|‘o.scly i'oi- the colei >iMtion of sn/ur 

nytoce?. 

- I have dealt with the hii^tory of the Bosporu,'. in .i hook written in (lennan hefnre the war hut never 
published. I hope to incorporate it into the second volume of rny *■ Skythien and der Bo^poru.s' plerrnau 
translation of my Russian hook of the same title jmVilished in Meanwhile the reader may look up 

the introduction of Latyschev to fos., P . E ., n, or the article Bosporu.s in /’. IPA'.. I !. E . 

3 If we may trust the mentions in the accounts of the hieropi at Delos (seep. 14, note 1) of a “ phiale ” 
dedicated bv Paerisades wo may assume that he was .alive in il-IO ii.c. (the later mentions m 240 and 
23.0 B.c. have no chronological valuet 



14 


M. EUSTOVTZEFF 


taxes as by a profitable trade with the Greek city-states, especially iu grain. This grain 
was produced partly on their own estates, partly on the estates of the Greek residents of 
their cities, and partly on those of the temples. A large amount was bought from the 
Scythians the Sauromatians and Maeotians and later from the Sarmatians. The Bosporan 
kings were merchant-kings, not monopohzing the external trade, but playing in it the most 
prominent part. 

As long as Athens was politically dominant the Bosporan kings depended entirely on 
Athens. Athens had always the possibility of opening or closing the straits ! After 
the Peloponnesian war the conditions changed considerably. However even after this 
catastrophe the policing of the sea remained the duty and privilege of Athens and Athens 
remained by force of tradition the greatest market in the world. No wonder that the 
Bosporan rulers tried to keep up and to improve the relations which existed between them 
and Athens in the fifth century n.c. Of course there is not the slightest sign of any 
dependence of the Bosporos on Athens in the fourth century. But there are common 
interests, interests vital both to Athens, which depended largely on the Bo.sporan grain, and 
to the Bosporus. 

After the period of Alexander’s conquest and of the struggle for power between his 
generals the situation in the Aegean Sea changed considerably. Athens is no longer 
policing the sea — it is Egypt and Ptolemy Philadelphos. Next in importance comes Rhode.sk 
For Ptolemy the South-Russian market had but slight importance. Commercial relations 
between Egypt and the Bosporus existed, as they existed also between Egypt and the 
south shore of the Black Sea (witness the many Egyptian or Alexandrian articles found in 
South Russia; on this subject Professor B. Farmakowsky gave an interesting paper at the 
international archaeological meeting at Alexandria in 1911), and there was a constant 
exchange of ships betvs’eeii Alexandria and the harbours of the Black Sea-, but in the main 
Alexandria, iu this unlike Athens, was not the least dependent on the great grain market 
of South Russia. 

It might be expected therefore that the Alexandrian kings, grain merchants as they 
were, would be hostile to their rivals of the Black Sea. Their staple article was also grain, 
their market was exactly the same as that of the Bosporan kings. And yet as our letter 
seems to show there was no such thing as rivalry between Alexandria and Pantikapaeum. 
The relations were friendly. Whyl 

The explanation is evident. Commercial rivalry did not exist between the Ptolemies 
and the Spartocids. The production of grain was too small in the ancient world to meet 
the demand, and there was a certain limit beyond which the exploitation of the customers 
by those who controlled the market was not supposed to go. To let enemies starve was a 
recognized right of the ancient states. But to let friends or allies starve or to cheat them 
beyond measure was against the ethics of Hellenistic times. 

1 Oil tlif! rekiticiiis between Rliode.s and the Black Sea >.ee Din Chry,->., Rhod. (xxxi), 103. Compare the 
inscription set up at Bosporos by the Rhodians in honour of King Paerisadcs II (los., P.E., ii, 35 i Xctc 
also that Paeri.sade.s II appears as donor of a phiale at Delo.s in 2.50 u.c . I. 0';-., xi, 2, 287, B 127 tf and 
Add., 1411; cf. P. JJCKRli.vCH, Ltsrriptious de Delos, Comptus des llieropes, 1926, 298, 95-96 (with note'' • 
313, 74;. It is however interesting that iu 250 Paerisades appears in the list of donors aloii" with 
Antigonos Gonatas and Stratonice, the daughter of Denietrios Poliorcotes (comp. G. Glotz, Rev. d Et Gr 
XXIX, 1916. 315, note 5 ; F. Durrb.vch, Inscr. de Delos, 298, 83-88 with bibliography). Cf. also the Deliaii 
inscription of the same time in honour of a Bosporan citizen, 1. Gr., xi, 4, 609. Cf. 1143. Does it not show 
that after the battle of Co.s Paerisades went gradually over to the .side of Antigonos ? 

- Compare the story of Sarapis and of his Sinopian origin, Fr. Hist. Gr., iii, 487, cf. I’ul>jhiii.<, iv 38 
On the recent tinds of Egyptian objects of Ptolemaic and Roman times in S. Russia, see B. Tourviev Rec 
arch., 1911 ; A. V. iScHillUT, The Sew Orient (Russ.), 13-14, 1926, p. 342 ff. ’ 



GEEEK SIGITTSEEIES IN EGYPT 


15 


Now, there is no doubt that Egypt alone was not able to cover all the needs of the 
various Greek markets. The grain production of Egyjtt vva.s not large enough. No wonder 
that the second largest productive area of the worlil — the Bos])oru.s — was thriving and 
prosperous even in the time of the Ptoleniie.s^. The Ptolemies dominated tin- sea and the 
market, they did not monopolize the market and did not intend to. 

Of course their toleration of the Bosporan trade was conditioned, exactly as such 
toleration used to be in the time of Athenian domination. The Ptolemies rlid not object to 
the Bosporan king selling his grain but did not extend this indulgence to evi'rvbody. To 
the friends, not to the enemies ! Grain was too powerful a weapon in the hands of Phila- 
delphos to let it slip out of his hands and to allow the Bosjioran kings to counteract 
the measures which he took. Thus a frequent interchange of emb.issie.s betwei'n Ale.xandria 
and Pantikapaeum was a necessity. No doubt the ambassadors — in this exactlv similar to 
the theoroi of Argos — discussed with Apollonio.'. the dioiketes (bnance minister) of 
Ptolemy, some jiobtical and economic jiroblems, esjiecially tlie management of the grain 
market, and this is the reason why Apollonios was so anxious to keeji tlunn in good mooil 
and to satisfy their curiosity as regards the temples, pyramids and the .sacred ciocodiles of 
the Arsinoite nome. 

We must not forget that for Philadelphos in his struggle with Syria and iMacedon the 
alliance of such a powerful king as Paeris.ides was not indifferent. Paeiisaile- no doubt 
held under his control the Black Sea and might liavi' interfered any moimuit in the atfaiis 
of Thrace and of its Greek cities, the neighbours and the vassaP of Macedon. As an aHv 
of Macedon Paerisades might have been dangerous to Egyjit inasmuch as he could hel]i with 
his grain many Greek cities, especially those of the Pland.s. and thus make them imbqien- 
dent of Philadelpho.s. Last but not least, the excellent gold of the Spartocids was welcome 
in Alexandria, and the Alexandrian merchants were eager to supply with thidr articles the 
rich customers of the Bosjioius-. 

As regards the vexed question of the date of the battle of Cos the new document lirings no 
decisive evidence. The battle of Cos diil not min utterly the inHuence of Egypt on Aegean 
afl'airs. And thus an embassy to Egy]if is natinal even a short rime after the gieat battle. 
However as I say no decisive evidence is furthcoming from our document. The only jroint 
which seems to be evident is, as Bell has |iointod out. that the (unba-sies eoidd not ])()ssiblv 
be sent at the time of a great naval conteA between Macedon and Egyjit. And I may add 
that probably the embassy of our document WU' one of the hi't. As the Delian documents 
show (see p. 14, note 1). Paerisades very soon neglected his old friend Ptolemy for the new 
.star Antigonos. 

' It .shown liy the tie.iutiful :.;r.ive' of the Sp.irt. of thi^ tiino IK'.ir I’.iiitik.ip.ieiuii. liy the 
enormous ma-'S of gold .nul '.ilver stored in them, and hy the t.ict th.it the Si itliiaii eravtss of tins 
period are aa rich a.s tho.-5e of the Bo'porua. 

- Comp, the relations hetween Philadeliiho.s and Zi.iel.is of IVithvni.i, IUttenckroer, S/jU.", t.ttj. I 
wonder tliat Pomtow has considered it possilile to d.ite tlie Delphi.ui decree, I )[ttk\rhR(.kr, .Vz/f/y, 4 :g), 
ill honour of Paerisade-. ami Kamasarye in the time nt P.ieri.„ide^ II. It is well known th.it the Paeris.ides 
of the 1 lelphiaii inscription is one (pf the Pospor.in kiie.'s of the si-cind < entiiri . tlie same who 'jai e so laaiiv 
gifts to the Didyuiaean Apollo. 



16 


OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE 
ROMAN EMPERORS IN THE SECOND HALF OF 
THE THIRD CENTURY 

By ARTHUR STEIN 

Although various investigations have shown that to determine with any degree of 
exactness the reigns of the Roman Emperors from Philip to Diocletian is an enterprise 
beset with difficulties, it is nevertheless worth while to establish what can serve as a 
reasonably secure basis for further research. This is the more advisable in view of the 
remarks of H. Mattingly^, who, in the interests of a hopeless theory, is prepared to 
sacrifice the solid foundation of facts. 

The dispute is concerned specially with two points, in regard to which I was com- 
pelled and, even after his renewed defence, am still compelled to reject Mattingly’s 
hypothesis; and since he now adduces new arguments I must reply with new counter- 
arguments, which, I hope, can only contribute to a further clearing of the position. 
These points are: (1) that Gallus and Volusian in their coinages carried on the regnal 
years of Decius as their own, and (2) that in the Alexandrian coins of Valerian and 
Gallienus by the first regnal years of the Emperors was meant the Egyptian year 252/3. 

I noted as an objection to the first hypothesis the fact that Mattingly, on that 
assumption, is compelled to postulate for the reign of Gallus and Volusian a period of 
scarcely a year, whereas they reigned over two years. Mattingly himself, in his new 
article (p. 16), now withdraws the estimate which he made in Num. Chron., 1924, 119, 
for Aemilian, whose first year is therefore not 251/2 but 252 3; hence he was not recog- 
nized in Egypt as Emperor until some time before 29 Augu.st, 253. I can only express 
surprise that Mattingly did not draw the corollary from this conclusion. For, if his ex- 
planation be accepted, we are faced with a hiatus; year 3 of Gallus and Volusian would 
then be 251 2, year 1 of Aemilian, according to his modified view, 252 '3, or rather 
merely July and August, 253. Then how is the larger part of the year 252/3 to be fill ed, 
since there are no coins of the fourth Alexandrian year of Gallus and Volusian? 
Mattingly seems indeed to consider it possible that in Egypt after Gallus at first 
Valerian and Gallienus were recognized, then Aemilian, and after his fall in the autumn 
of 253 Valerian and Gallienus once more. But even granting that our literary evidence 
for Aemilian’s success and end is exiguous, yet we must not so far disregard it as to 
turn upside down everything that this scanty evidence offers. 

It is therefore not the fact that this evidence is insufficient to invalidate Mattingly’s 
conclusions. All the accounts we possess contradict most flatly the assumption that 

' My refutation of his criticism in Sian. Chroa., 1924, 119, which I developed in Archiv, viii, 
11-13, is assailed by M. in this Journal, xiii (1927), 14-18. Although full recognition must he accorded 
to the excellent spirit in which he conducts his polemic, his attempt to contest what is well established 
induces me to offer the above observations. I hope that he, whom I value as a di.stinguished and 
deservedly esteemed numismatist, will not feel him.self in any way personally affected by my words, which 
are directed purely to the point at issue. Plato amicus, amicior reritas/ 



OBSERVATIONS ON C'HRONOLOOY OF ROMAN EMPERORS 17 


Valerian was recognized in any part of the Empire, above all in Egypt, so early as 252, 
Aemilian not till nearly a year later, in July, 253. Specially true i.s this of the state- 
ment made unanimously (save for the quite obvious clerical error in Syncell. 715, 
TpieTf) for Tp/yaj/i'w) alike by the Greek historians, the Latin epitomators, and the chrono- 
graphers. to the effect (with unimportant variations) that Aeinilian reigned about tlii-ee 
months (see my statement of the evidence in ArcJiiv, vii, 43 f.). Now Valerian was not 
elevated by his troops until after he had received from Gallus the commission to oppose 
Aeinilian^. If this event is to be placed, with llattingly, in 252, oiu' must assume that 
between the elevation of Aemilian and his recognition as Emperor 10-11 months elaj)S('d, 
which nobody will believe when he reads that Aemilian, as soon as he was hailed Emperor, 
marched on Italy in great haste (peTci iroWov Se Tay^ov'i, Zosim., i, 2S. 3: avTiKa...taTrev^e, 
Zonal., XII, 21), and that immediately afterwards occurred the decision against Gallus 
and Volusian. 

If then Mattingly admits that Aemilian was not recognized in Egy])t till Julv or 
August, 253, Valerian cannot have passed there as Emperor so early as 252. On the 
contrary, the datings in Egypt must have been by Gallus and Volusian till well into the 
year 253, and there should therefore be coins and papyri of their fourth year, which as 
a matter of fact is not the case. 

In this connexion I should like to call attention to another contradiction in which 
Mattingly involves himself. He answers my reference to the many papyri dated in the 
second year of Gallus by the statement that there is a double system. (1) the official 
one of the coins, which describes 251,2 as year F, and (2) the unofficial, according to 
which the same year was year B. But how does Mattingly account for the fact that we 
possess papvrus documents of year F of Gallus and Volusian-? Is he going to declare 
that the dates of all these papyri are those of the official system, whereas, just as 
uniformly, all the papyri with year B follow the unofficial reckoning? But if the third 
year in the papyri is that of the unofficial system, then, since such papyri occur from 
both the beginning and the end of this year, there .should be at least some of the 
corresponding Alexandrian coins of the fourth year, which, as I have just shown, for 
another reason also ought to be in evidence if Mattingly’s explanation were sound. 

That we possess coins of the sixth year of the era of Dacia only for Valerian and 
Gallienus, not for Gallus, and for Aemilian only of the seventh and eighth years, gives 
us pause, as Mattingly says. But even here we must in any case reject the idea that 
dates were reckoned by Valerian more than a year before Aemilian. The mention of the 
sixth year on the former’s coins is due therefore, as is a-^sumed also by Pick (Antilr 
Miinzen von Xordyi'iecl/enland. i. 4) and regarded as possible by Mattingly himself, to 
hastily cut or damaged stamp.s with ■'an. xi. ’ 

The non-occurrence of a xv year on the coins of Aemilian from Viminacium can 
prove nothing, inasmuch as we cannot certainly determine either the exact starting- 
point of this era or the day of Aemilian’s death. Mattingly assumes “before the end of 

' Oiilv till' w'luwiicc huf any authority in our ^ource^ : .uiy otlier coinbiiiation is ([uite ui tlie air. 
Whoever therefore dielare' tlie literary eviffeiiee too scanty to contradict tins renounces the jiosaibihty of 
usino- these .sources iZo.-iuj., I, oy • Zon.u'., xil, lil, 22; .Joann. Antioch., Ere. de iiisi'd., 110, GO Dt. 
Boor ; Petr. Patr., Ere. de 264, l.oS Boi.ss. : Epit. de Cae.s., 31, 1 ; Viet, Cae.s., 31-32, 1 ; Eutrop., i.x, 
5-7- Hierou,, Clivne Ohf„q,. 2.")S, (Voveua//-. a. 3.‘)4 i at all, even in conne.vion with the official doeuuieiits 
of the first rank, auiony which, ,is 51. rightly rcin.irks, the coins are to be pl.iced. 

- P.S.I.. t II, TUi ' 1 Sept. ', G.\y., XIV, 1640 ■ 17 Oct. ■, Vlll, 1 1 lit WlI.CKKX. Chre.M , 3!)7 i'22 Aug.) ; also 
an o.stracoii, T.mt, An'hir, vii, 224 no d.iy luentioned,. 

Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


3 



18 


AETHUE STEIN 


September”; Pick, op. cii., 25, says, more cautiously, “Herbst 239”; it is therefore quite 
possible that Aemilian, who, in my opinion (cf. Archiv, vii, 44), reigned until September, 
253, had already fallen at the moment when the xv year began at Viminacium. 

Mattingly’s theory arose purely from the effort to explain the coins of Gallus and 
Volusian with “tr. pot. ini” and the absence of their Alexandrian coins of the second 
year ; and it rests solely on these considerations. I do not wish to lay too much stress 
on the consideration, no doubt a pis-aller, that in the first case there may be an error of 
the die-cutter, and that for the second attempts at an explanation have been made, 
which, it is true, do not satisfy Mattingly. But, however that may be, his theory, as 
will have been seen, is confronted by insuperable obstacles; there is in fact, given the 
state of the case, nothing left us but to return to the supposition not only that it was 
not till after August, 253, that Valerian and Gallienus actually came to the throne, but 
that it was only then that they were recognized even in Egypt. 

I will not repeat the proofs that Valerian’s year A was 253/4; this holds good for 
the papyri not only “sometimes” (p. 17) but always: there is no other reckoning either in 
P. Strassb. 7, 8, 10, 11 (“seem,” says Mattingly) or in Oxy. xii, 1407 (the Egyptian date 
in this document does not refer to the same year as the consular date); on the contrary, 
P. Strassb. 10, for example, gives the date 16 Oct. (268) for Claudius’s first year^, and 
hence reckons Gallienus’s sixteenth year as 268/9, his first year therefore as 253/4. If 
this is the case, then the coin dates also rest on no different basis; for Macrianus’s 
year A = Valerian’s year H in P. Lips. 57 just as in the Alexandrian coins (M.’s table, 
p. 15). A double method of reckoning does not occur, as I have shown in detail in 
Archiv, vii, and Klio, xxi, 78-82, till the period after the death of Gallienus, although 
it is just for this period that Mattingly refuses to entertain it If he contests this, with- 
out bringing for this particular point any really new counter-arguments^, he does so once 
more on the ground of his thesis, that the first year of Valerian was 252/3, against which 
therefore the preceding lines are primarily directed. 

' M. does indeed call this date “irreconcilable with the evidence of Alexandrian coins”; but it is the 
“evidence” of M.’.s combinations, not the “evidence” of the coins, that is affected. 

- It seems to me in<admis.sible to use the d;ite.s of the G.illic pretenders to solve these subtle chrono- 
logical questions, since these dates, as M. him.self rightly remarks {of. too my article It.E., ill, 1058 f. 
1666, VI, 70:i f. ), are uncertain. 



19 


NOTE ON THE FORE(;IOIN(J 

By ir. MATTINGLY 

As a frieudly correspondence has failed to bring J)r. Btein and myself nearer agree- 
ment, we must leav'e our controversy to the judgement of scholars. I should just like to 
add a few words on the weakest point in my argument, on which Dr. Stein has naturally 
concentrated his attack— the events of A.n. 252-2.53. 

Aemilian's Egyptian coins, which are not rare, are all of the second year: they point 
to a reign beginning in August. If this is August of the year 253. Acunilian's reign 
extended to the end of October or later of that year: our authorities agree in giving him 
about three mouths. But the inscription from Gemellae in Nunddia quoted by De.ssat', 
Inscription's Lutinnc Sclecfac, 531, shows us, on October 22nd, 253, a dedication to 
“Victoria Augusta for the safety of our lords \'alerian and Galliemis” made bv soldiers 
of the Icgio III Augnstn, who have returned from Ehaetia to Gemellae. The dedication 
is made by a part of the array, which had been concentrated in Rhaotia by Valerian 
against Aeznilian. The victory of Valerian, then, must lie some months back from 
October 22ud, 253. Aernilian’.s Egyptian years, then, arc not 252/3, 253/4, as suggested 
in my article: so far as Ur. Stein's attack on my views depends on this dating, it ceases 
to be effective^. 

Aemilian’s years in Egypt must, therefore, be 251/2, 252/3, a.s I had at first thought. 
His revolt was not such a momentary affair as our fragmentary tradition might suggest. 
He revolted in August, 252. and drew Egypt and probably the East at large with him^. 
Trebonianus Gallus sent Valerian to Rhaetia to rally the German armies to his aid. 
Neither Aemilian nor Valerian reached Italy that autumn. In 253 Aemilian got his blow 
in first and defeated Gallus with little difficulty. After a short pause, perhaps for 
negotiations, Valerian followed and defeated Aemilian with equal ease. Aemilian may 
have been Emperor by the end of March, 253, and a corpse by the end of June. 

[Dr, Stein sends us the following comment on the above: — 

The argument which M. here thinks decisive against my theory is the inscription 
from Gemellae, but in point of fact it proves nothing for his assumption that Valerian 
was hailed Emperor before the end of August, 2-53. What he says beside about Aemilian 
— who in his opinion revolted in Egypt as early as August, 252, and immediately 
struck coins, but cannot have been Emperor before March. 253, and was killed by the 
end of Jime — has not the least support in our sources, either in the authors or in the 
evidence of the coins. EditorI\ 

' Dr. Stein places the defeat of Aeiiiili.au in .Septcinher, g.'dt : this is harely. if at .dl. rccniicil.itilo either 
with the Egyptian cnin-s or with tlie inscription just iiuuteil. But, even if he were right, it would still 
remain certain that the dia impeni of V.derian is before tlic end of August, 2."i:5 — and that is the vital 
point. 

- The mint of Dacia h.id apparently cea.scd to strike for G.dlus, even before Aemilian’s revolt. Yinii- 
uacium mav have held out for some luonrhs for f !.dlus. The d.ite of its er.i is not Liter than September : 
Philip, who died about the end of September, 24!>, lived loiigenough to have .i year .\l, 2dO-2.")0. flostili.in, 
who certainly died within a .short tunc of his f.ither. Tr.ij.in Deeius fproliahly died July, has a 

year xm, 2.ol-2.'>2, which his father ha.s not. Trebonianus G.illus, .Veniilian and Valerian ail have a 
year xiv (252-2j:f). 

3—2 



20 


CHRONOLOGICAL PITFALLS 

By J. G. MILNE 


The arguments used in the discussion on third centur}- chronology suggest some 
observations on the necessity of investigating the value of Egyptian evidence in such a 
matter. 

As regards the use of papyri, there is a risk of giving too much weight to the dates 
of isolated documents. The Egyptian scribe was liable to err, as we all are : and he was 
more likely to go wrong in dating than a modern clerk, since dating by regnal years is 
more difficult than by calendar years, as anyone who has had to do the former can 
testify: moreover, I should doubt whether the standard of education was as high in the 
Egyptian local government service as it is in the English. From over thirty years' experience 
I know that it is not infrequent for a slip to be made in the date of an English official 
document, and I should expect such slips to be more frequent in ancient Egypt. So, if 
a date which does not fit in with the received chronology is found on a papyrus, it 
should not be hastily assumed that it points to the existence of a variant system. 

In this particular case, much use has been made of the reckonings in P. Strassb. 7, 
8, 10 and 11, which are treated as supporting one another: but in fact they should be 
regarded as representing two separate problems. P. Strassb. 11 is written on the back of 
10, and depends on that for its dating : it is not to be taken as an independent jnece of 
e%ddence. 

P. Strassb. 7 and 8 must be considered with P. Strassb. 6 : these three give a list of 
payments of the same tax for the same people to the same official, as a rule in two 
instalments each year, from 2 Valerian to 1 Tacitus. From the form of the documents 
and the editor’s description, it would appear that the representatives of the payers from 
time to time went through the local archives and jotted down copies of the entries they 
found there: in any case, it is clear that the lists are later compilations from old papers' 
and the two entries for each year are always treated as coming under the same regnal 
date, except where a new scribe begins a new list — at the first entries on 7 and 8. It 
may be assumed that the scribes were working on somewhat the same scheme as the 
compiler of the table of reigns in P. Oxy. 35 verso, who ignored all broken years: but 
it is noticeable that the schemes of the three papyri do not fit : the last entry in 6 and 
the last in 7 if the editor’s restoration is correct, are of years which could not exist on 
the schemes followed for previous entries: so 7 and 8 start with entries dated on a 
different scheme. In view of these facts the chronological value of P. Strassb. 6 7 and 8 
seems small. 

P. Strassb. 10 thus becomes isolated: and with regard to it there only needs to be 
added, to what has been said above about the general liability to error, the further 
reminder that personal idiosyncrasies in dating are not unknown. There are people who 
refuse to recognize a change in the calendar, or an alteration in government and persist 
in adhering to the old system in defiance of official orders: and the conditions of Egypt 
in the middle of the third century would give much opportunity for such intransigence. 



CHRUN OLOG I CAL PIT FA LLS 


L’l 


On the numismatic side, the use of Alexandrian coins for dating is often marred by 
the tendency to estimate the activity of the mint by the number of specimens to b(> 
found in Museums, or, in other words, by the number of different types used in any 
year. On this theory, coins of 12 Nero would be very rare, as only two types of billon 
and two of bronze were struck, and the ordinary collection naturally is content with a 
specimen or two of each: as a matter of fact, the billon coinage of this year was 
enormous, as may be seen by reference to the tables in Hiistoriad Studies {B.S.A. E(ji/pt), 
II, 30-4. As I have more than once pointed out, the general rule at Alexandria was 
that, the busier the mint, the fewer were the types used. The coins of Aemilian. though 
there are several types, are very rare, and the blundered inscriptions and uncertain 
portrait suggest that they were struck very soon after the news of his recognition was 
received at Alexandria, and ceased to be issued before there was time for correct models 
to come to hand. 

Further, the fact that no Alexandrian coins of the second vear of (Jallus aie known 
is no reason for suggesting that another system of dating was used at the Alexandrian 
mint than that which makes 2 Gallus=251 2. A blank year at that mint is not unique: 
in the reign of Septimius Severus there were several close together, in years 7, 11, IS 
and 19: and even when coins were struck, the output varied greatly: under Severus 
Alexander it dwindled down almost to nothing in years S and 9. So it seems unneces- 
sary to hunt for Alexandrian coins to be assigned to 251/2. 

It must also be noted that the Alexandrian hunt did not issue coins at the same 
rate all through the year, so far as can be judged from the statistics for broken ])eriods, 
such as 68/9. when the proportions of the i.ssues are, roughly: — 1 Galba (2 months) 6: 
2 Galba (5 months) 3: 1 Otho (3 months) 3: 1 Vitelliu.s (2 months) 1: 1 Vespasian 
(2 months) 2. So the fact that there was a considerable output of coins of 1 Claudius If. 
almost equal to that of 15 Gallienus, does not prove anything as to the ]'especti\'e 
amounts of the Egyptian year covered by these two periods: and the joint total of the 
two is less than that of 2 Claudius. My impression is that the mint of Alexandria was 
usually busier in the summer than in the winter: and this might be accounted for by 
the need of coin to pay taxes in the la.st three montLs of the Egyptian year. 

The foregoing warnings are of general application to the study of the chronology of 
Roman Egvpt: two notes on questions arising in the present discussion may be added. 

Some years ago I tried to prove that Gallus continued to use the regnal years of 
Decius, and brought in the evidence of the coins of Viminacium and Dacia: but I found 
that this raised more problem- than it solved. And the dating of these coins is hope- 
les.sly careless: I lately found a coin of Viminacium. of Philip, which was clearly 
inscribed ANN: the engraver of coui'se meant ANVI, but he did not engrave that. 

The Egyptian dates of Vaballathus are of no help in this problem. He was not 
recognized in Egypt till some time in his year 1. which was equated with year 1 of 
Aurelian. His year.s must run from his assumption of power at Paltuvra. and. unless 
anv evidence is obtained as to his Palmyrene dating, they rlo not elucidate Egyptian 
chronology. 



ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED BY 
GREEK WRITERS 

By D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON 

From Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, Athenaeus and Xenocrates we can compile a long 
list of Egyptian fisbes, but of many of these we are told nothing but their names. A few, 
such as and /ceo-rpeu?, are plain ordinary words, and these offer no ambiguity, for the 

eel and the grey mullet are common fishes of the Nile. Others, like y\avl<i, dpiaaa, i dpKr), 
aCXovpo'i. are more or less familiar words, usually open to easy and safe identification; but 
it is another matter when these names are applied to Egyptian fishes, for those fishes to 
which the Greek names usually belong are not found in the Nile. The best we can then 
do is to look among the fishes of the Nile for similar or analogous species; but we may 
still be in doubt as to which bore the original and which the borrowed name. 

The older scholars and naturalists had their eyes open to the puzzle of these Greco- 
Egyptian words, but they knew that they were groping in the dark for want of better 
knowledge of Egyptian fishes. Rondeletius, for instance, speaking of the fish Alabus 
(p. 4.34), says: Alabas...et alii infiniti pisces quorum nominibus supersedeo, nobis ignoti. 
Sed admonendi sunt studiosi alios ideo incognitos esse quod nobis peregrin! sunt, ut Nilotic! 
qui e mari in Nilum subieruut: alii aliorum locorum proprii. Quamplurimi corruptis 
nomhiibus apud Plinium, Athenaeum, Aristotelem in exemplaribus nostris leguntur. 

Greek or so-called Greek fish-names come to us mostly through Oppian (the Cilician), 
through Athenaeus and his cosmopolitan friends, and from parts of Aristotle’s Xatural 
History, which parts (especially the Ninth Book) are often of doubtful authenticity or 
alien origin. Indeed the well-known fact that the eel is the only fish mentioned in Homer 
might suggest that the early Greeks cared little for fish, and that their language was far 
from rich in words relating thereto. On the other hand the Egyptians were famous in 
Herodotus’s time (ii, 139) for their dried and salted fish ; and Lucian again {Navig., 16) bears 
witness to the excellence of their rdpi^oi. Diodorus (i, 52) tells us of the vast quantities 
of fish caught, such that the curers, rovs irpocTKapTepovvTas rais Tapi)(^eiai<;, could scarce 
keep pace with them, and counts no less than twenty-two different kinds from Lake Moeris 
alone. The export of fish, dried or otherwise prepared, was one of the busiest trades of 
antiquity. Moreover Greek sponge-fishers ply their trade in Alexandrine waters to-day, 
and so may they have gone to and fro in very early times. In short, even apart from 
travellers’ tales of Egyptian fishes, there were plenty of opportunities for Egyptian fish- 
names and Semitic and other strange names besides to mingle with the Greek, coming in 
as part and parcel of the old lingua franca of Levantine mariners. 

Fish-names are among the words peculiarly open to borrowing and to all the vicissitudes 
of Volksetymologie, as the sailor, the merchant and the fisherman bandy them to and fro. 
Even our own vocabulary draws its fish-names from many languages, with no little cor- 
ruption and confusion; the Fr. limande becomes our “lemon'' or lemon-sole, and cod torsJc 
and saithe , all three of them names of the cod in as many languages, become with us the 
names of as many species of fish. Nor should we forget that fishermen and huntsmen 
sometimes cling to very ancient words, as old (so to speak) as Babel. Who shall say from 



ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED r>Y GPtEEK WIHTERS 23 


what language, or from what group of languages, such world-old words as tunuji. seine-net 
or aayi^vT], hijssus, sepia or revdls originally came? 

As for the Egyptian fishes themselves our stock of knowledge lias hc'cn growing ever 
since the days of Forskal and of Geoft'roy St. Hilaire, and it may he said to have keen at 
last completed by Dr. G. A. Boulenger’s exhaustive monograjih k Besides Dr. Boulenger, 
MM. Claude Gaillard, Victor Loret, Ch. Kuentz. Pierre Montet and others, not to speak 
of Brugsch, Budge and the other great Egyjitologists. have put many old Egyptian and 
Coptic fish-naines within our easy reach, and also the vernacular Arabic, in which traces of 
Old Egyptian speech remain. 

Here is a rough list of fishes attributed to the Nile by the Gn'ek writers, oiu' or more 
of them, whom I have mentioned above : 


d/dpapli 

X/iToii, XetTcos 

dXa^y'i, dXXd^rjs, Alabeta 

X€7riSaiTo<; 

/3aLo}v (Hesych.) 

Xv^vo'i 

/S 0 O 9 (Strabo) 

paiwTijs 

^copev'i (Xenocr.) 

vdpicy 

yXavt<; 

o^vppvyxoe; 

e'yx,eXv<i 

Tr€p<f>ypi<; (Xiimen.. ap. Athen.) 

iXea}Tpl<; 

eruTrepSys 

ei^yTO'i 

aiXoapos 

dpiaaa 

aipos (Xenocr.. Artemid. On. I t) 

K€<TTp€V^ 

awohovTis 

KiBapO'i 

TlKpXt) 

Kopatclvos 

<f)dypo^, (fxiypwpios (Strabo) 

Kvirplvo^ 

<j)vcra 


')(o2po'i (Strabo) 


There are a few names in this list whose ascription to an Egyptian source seems plain 
and certain; many more lend themselves to conjecture; others again seem to be (juite 
obscure. Let us see what we can make of them, one by one. 

dXa/St]^, dWuf3i]^ (Athen., .■>12 b. Gcopon.. xi. 7). This is (diviously an Egyptian word, 
as M. Chassinat and others have already shown-. It represents the O.Eg. r(‘pi. or h-pi, 
which becomes in Sahidic 'As-feKc, and in Bohairic Aeiqi. M. Chassinat points out that in 
the Papyrus magique de Londres-Leyde, ix. d. the same word occurs in its demotic form, 
lbs or labis, and is spoken of as lbs ym, i.e. the black labis. The Egyptian name survives in 
Modern Arabic, under such forms as labis. labces. labisu, lebsa, lebes. lijj.s. Eorskal rpiotes 
an Arabic form halavi, which, as Coraes has already remarked {ad Xenocr., 2 ). 176). is not 
to be distinguished from dXa/By^. Alabeta (Plin.. v, 9) is again the same word. 

Athenaeus (301 c, d) speaks of a fish Xe/Slas; he describes it as peXas rgv ^poiav, and 
declares it to be identical with rjiraro^. I have little doubt that Xe^la<; is but another 
form of the same Egy 2 Aian word ; and the black colour of Athenaeus ’s fish goes some way 
towards supporting this identification. I am further inclined to susjiect (meo pericalo) that 
Athenaeus’s synonym yiraTos is also an Egyptian word, and no other than the O.Eg. ahtu, 
a fish, 4 J word occurring in the Book of the Dead. On the other hand, Arche- 

• G. A. Boci.enger, Zoology of Egypt, The Fishes ot the Site, London, 1!)07. 

- E. Ch.\SSIX'AT, Un popyrns nu'dical eopte: Mem. de V Inst. fr. (Tureh. orient, da Cnire, xx.xu, 192], (q\ 
Ct Gaillard, Iterherrhes sur les poisso/is /■i-pre'sentiis dans ijuehptes toinhetiii.e ei/yptiens : ibid., LI, 41, 1923. 



24 


D’APtCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON 


stratus {aj). Athen.) says that the is found round about Delos and Tenos, and if that 

be so it would be a sea-fish. This runs counter to my snggestion ; but I am not inclined 
to abandon it, for the transference of a name from one fish to another is a common thing, 
and Archestratus is no great authority. 

Another difficult, and perhaps allied word is eXe(/)tTi?, (Hipp.. 357, 45). 

Coray (ud Xenocr., p. 92) would read dXcjiriaTt]^ here ; but this suggestion is not more 
plausible than the other. 

The fish to which these Egyptian names apply is the commonest of Xile fishes, a 
Cyprinoid or carp-like fish, described as Ciipriims nilotifvx by Forskal (Descr. animfdmm 
etc., 1775), and re-described as Labeo niloficus by Cuvier. According to Isidore G. St. Hilaire, 
the name lebse is used generically by the Arabs at Asyut, where the fi.shermen speak of 
this species as lebse seirn. the •■true lebis.” and have a corresponding specific name for the 
allied Labeo forskalii, Cuv. 

n/Spapk or «/3ep/xi>?. This is one of the Nile fishes mentioned by Athenaeus (312 a). 
That the name is an Egyptian word has long been known; it was known to 8chemseddin 
Mohammed, an Arab scholar of the early sixteenth century quoted by Schneider^, and 
•Tablonski^ and Wiedemann® are among those who have called attention to the fact. 

At the root of dppapL<i is (or n-pew.ui) of the Scala Magna, the Coptic name of 
Tilapia (or Chromis) vilotica (L.), a common fish often to be seen on mural paintings and 
sculptures of the Old Empire. It is commonlv known nowadavs by its Arabic name bolti, 
but there are several alternative names in Arabic, as there are in Coptic also. 

According to M. Cl. Gaillard and others the proper name of this fish in O.Eg. is dn \ 
while the O.Eg. equivalent of pjv.wi, means rather in generaP. This word rem became 
in time supplanted, in the general sense of fish, by the word ahti, of which we have spoken 
already; and rem then came to mean ‘"the fish" par excellence, the most valued of all Nile- 
fishes, that is to say Tilapia nilotica, or bolti. 

Another Coptic word for the same important fish is u}4.qoTp!, retained to this day by 
the fishermen on Lake Menzaleh under the form sabdr or shubcir. jlJj. It is not impossible 
that in the Greek (7a7rep-B[<, or craTrep-Si??, we have the same word ; and even t,i'Tnrovpo^, or 
'LTTirovpos, may be related to, or corrupted from it. 

There is yet another Arab synonym, huLo, mest. This is given, on the authority of 
MM. Loat and Kuentz, in Boulenger’s Fishes of the Xile (p. 528) and in M. Gaillard’s 
Recherches (p. 88), as a s}Tionym of the bolti, rarely used in the Delta and at Cairo, but in 
common use at Akhmim. Girgeh and Nag-Hamadi. In the Greek-Coptic Glossary of Dios- 
corus, edited by MM. Bell and Crum (Aeggptus, vi, 179-22(5, 1925). we find ulBpaui^ glossed 
by e.ucu 5 cc. The editors do not explain the Coptic word; but it seems not unlikely that in 
mest we have its Arabic derivative. 

The O.Eg. name dn, or ’an-it, is at least suggestive of the Gk. dvOlas. The fish- 
symbol which enters as a determinant into the word dn is a very good picture of the 
Tilapia itself. 

' J. G. ScHXEiDER, ad P. Artedi, Synon. Pisninn, 1789, p. 32-_' ; from Xotices ut E.ctr. des MSS. de la 
Bihl. do Roi, I, 255. 

- Opuscala, 1804, i. 

^ Sammhiag dor altiigyptischer Wurter irelche i-onli. Autoren Oiit.tchrieben warden sind, Leipzig, 1883, 

p. 8. 

^ Cf. also M. Pierre Montkt, L>‘s poismns emplayer duar I’errito.re tderoghjpJdgoe: Bull. Last. fr. 
d’arch. orient, du Caire, .\i, 4U, 1913. 



ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED BY GREEK WRITERS 


■25 

Mr. S. R. K. Glanville has figured {Journal, xii, PL xix. 192(i) two objert'^. one pre- 
dynastic, the other of the Eighteenth-Nineteenth Rtuia.sty. on lioth of wliicli is rejire- 
sented a group of fishe.s clustered round and feeding on ii rounded ball of somi'thing or 
other. And Mr. Glanville correlate.s these anci<'nt drawings (one two thousand rears older 
than the other) with Herodotus’.s de.serijdion (ii. of the GdAx <n ilytXdloi which 
migrate up and down the Nile: the males .shedding their milt whicli the feiuales swallow 
on the downward journey, while the females drop their spawn and the males swallow it 
on the way up. Now the fish represented on the aforesaid objects are undoiditedlv either 
Tilapia nilntica or some closely allied sp(‘cies; and it so li.-ippens that Tilapias (among other 
fishes of the family Cichlidae) have the V(U‘V curious habit of taking the \-oung frv into 
their mouths, and lodging them there or in the j)harvnx for protection. There has been 
much di.spute as to whether it be the males or the females which do this; recent evidence 
seems to be on the side of the females, but it would not he surpiising if (in one speci(>s or 
another) both sexes shoukl be found to share this pai'ental charge. In ,inv case, and 
whether Herodotus be wholly right or no, it si-ems very likely that lu' is .■dludine to 
this curious habit, and that the same is roughly depicted on the ancient objects which 
Mr. Glanville figures and describes. 

KopaKU'o^. This seems to be a plain Greek word, with no trace of Egy])ti.ui or other 
alien origin, but it is not easy to interpret; it is a])plied both to a sea-fish and to a fish of 
the Nile, and in neither case is its meaning certain. 

Athenaeus gives us several synonyms of the Egyptian Coracine. It wa.s called (121 c) 
rriXTTj'i by some, and i)ixlvripo<; at Alexandria. Another name, according to Euthvdemus 
(308 c). is aaTrepSr]^'. and again it is called ttXu raf at Ah'xandria (309 a). or, according to 
Philotimus, TrXaTicrTaKO'^ (308 f). a-aTrepS)}<;, as I have already said, mav' be the Coptic 
iyi>.qw9pi, whence the Arabic xabdr; and rreXTij-; might well be the same word as survives 
in the Arabic bolti. Whether this latter word may lurk also in the Alexandrine TrXd-a^ 
and TrXaTta-Ta/cd? is a question which we may leave alone. Now we have seem that bolti 
and sabdr are synonymous, and that both undoubtedly refer to Tilapia nilotica, which we 
have also identified with d^papU', and this identification of Kopaxwo^ is so far supported 
hy the account which Athenaeus and Martial (xiir. 85) give of its cxcelhmce as a fooil 
fish. For Tilapia is the best of all the Nile fishes, save perhaps the great Nile Perch 
{Lates): and there is no better fish than KopaKwoi, says Athenaeus, it is even Kara irdna 
Tov pvXXov Kpeiaaccv. 

But again, the name KopaKivo'i (though Athenaeus explains it Sid to rds' K6pa<; Kuieir) 
suggests a black or dark-coloured fish; and we have seen that the Inbi.i or dXa/3G' {Labrn 
niloticns) is spoken of in the Papyri as blaik, though we might rather call it dark metallic 
blue. And lastly Pliny tells us (xxxii, fi9) that ‘ coracini fel rxcitat vi.-iam'’ ] and precisely 
so does M. Chassinafs medical papyrus recommend, twice over, ciuj nXisfiHc ‘ gall 

of the black labis ” — as a remedy for defective vision. 

Such evidence as we have, then, is ambiguous; and we may find reasons for identifying 
KopaKu'oi either with dXaRG or d(3pap,U, i.e.. with Tilaj)ia or with Labco iiilolicu^;. I think 
there is some confusion in the Greek: and I suspect that Athenaeus and his friends were 
none too careful in discriminating these two fishes. 

XeTTiScoTo?. This again is a difficult fish to explain and identify. It was a sacred fish 
according to Herodotus (ii, 72) ; and was the oidy .sacrerl fi.sh mentioned by him except the 
eel. It was identical with the carp, Kvirplno^ (Dorio, ap. Athen., 309 e): it was one of the 

.leiiru. "1 Arch. SIV. 


4 



26 


D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON 


three fishes (together with cfxiypo'i and 6^vppvy')(^o<f) which devoured the lost member of 
Osiris (Plut., Is. et Os., xviii). 

Linnaeus gave the name of lepidotus to the fish which we have just identified with the 
or d\a/3)p', Forskal's Cyprinus (Labeo) niloticus. This is a very carp-like fish, and it 
was moreover the only Egyptian Cyprinoid which Linnaeus knew; its scales are large, as 
in most fishes of the Carp family. Now the Coptic (Bohairic) Aeiqi, which survives in lehis, 
etc., is defined in the older dictionaries (Scala Magna. Peyron) as piscis squanns vestitus, 
of which phrase the Greek XeTrihayro^ would be a straightforward rendering; and the form 
of the word is so like an echo of iVeiqi or lebis as to suggest that VoU'.setijynologie played 
its part in the transliteration. On the other hand the lehis was not a sacred fish, and 
thereby its identity with Xe-KiCtano^; becomes at once improbable. 

A very sacred fish was the great Nile Perch, Perea (Lates) niloticus, L., which Sonnini^ 
was the first to identify with the Xdro? of the Greeks, worshipped at Esneh or Latopolis. 
This fish is much prized for eating: according to Cuvier and Valenciennes "tous les auteurs 
reconnaissent que Lates nilotirvs est le meilleur des poissons du Nil. seul le 'bolty' 
(Tilapia nilotica) pent lui etre compare.” 

One of its names among the fellaheen near Cairo is Keshr, which signifies ‘’fish- 
scales”; and here M. Gaillard asks: “A-t-on donne ce nom au Lates parcecj^u’il est convert 
d’un grand nombre d’ecailles, ou bien y a-t-il quelque raj^port entre ce nom et les spheres 
remplies d'ecailles de Lates qui ont ete trouvees ensevelies dans le sable de la necropole 
d’Esneh, au milieu des millions de momies de ce poisson-? In either case this Arab name 
Ke.shr (it is only one of several) lends itself to close comparison with XeTrcScoTos. 

Athenaeus treats Xdro? separately (311 f), and neither asserts nor denies its identity 
with XeiriSooTos. At Asyut the fish is still called kites, 

A third identification of XeiriSayro^ remains. Sonnini {op. cit.) identified it with the 
bgnni. Cgprinus {Barbus) hgnni, Forskiil: and Geolfroy St. Hilaire® adopted the same 
identification, on the ground that ‘‘la carpe qui peut justifier le nom de I'ecailleuse par 
excellence, celle en laquelle on admire les ecailles les plus larges et les plus beaux reflets 
argentes. est indub itablement Tespece publiee par Forskal sous le nom de Cgprinus binng.'’ 
With this identification HM. Boulenger, Gaillard and Lorentz all agree. 

The fishes which, as we learn from Greek writers, were held sacred in Egypt are the eel, 
the Oxyrrhynchus, the XeTrfSwTo?. Xdros, and (pdjpos', of these the eel and the Oxyrrhyn- 
chus {Morrnyrus spp.) are not to be mistaken. XeTTiSwro? is sacred on the authority of 
Herodotus, who couples it with CY^yeXv?; and of Plutarch, who associates it with (jidypoi 
(or (fyaypcopios) and o^uppu'yyof. Strabo (xvii, 823) says that the Oxyrrhynchus and Lepi- 
dotus are universally venerated in Egypt; while Xdro? is the object of a local cult at 
Latopolis. 

The number of fishes depicted on Egyptian monuments is large, but only three, so far 
as I can learn, are found as mummies: viz. the o^vppvy^o^ or Morrnyrus at Behnesa on 
the Bahr Youssouf"*, the Nile Perch (Lates) in great abundance at Latopolis, and the 
Bynni, according to Geolfroy St. Hilaire, at Thebes. Herodotus's statement that the eel 
was a sacred fish is so far unconfirmed. Apart from the Oxyrrhynchus we have then three 
Greek names of sacred fishes, XeTrtScoTo?, Xdro’i, and ^dypo'^, and but two fishes, the Lates 

* Voyage dims la Haute et Basse Enypte, 1799, in. 

- Lortet et Gaillard, Ff/ioie ntomifee de Vuueienue Egypte: Archices du Alnsee de Lyon, vni, 189 
190.3. 

" Descr. de I’Egypte : Hist. nut. rh s poissons dn Ed, XXIV. 280, 1829. 

’ Of. Luutet et Gaillard, i, 19o. 



ON EGYPTIAN EiSH-NAMES USEO HY GKEEK WUiTEP.S 


aud the Bynni, to equate with these; Xdro? speaks for itself, and we are left with Xe7ri?'(0T6<; 
and (fjdypo!;. AeTrAwTOs'. as a sacred fish distinct from X«to?, can be no other than the 
Bynni; at least we seem to be following the trend of argument, and we are cf'rtainly 
following the chief authorities, if we so identify it. 

Kv-TTpluo^. We have mentioned the word Kv-plvo^ as synonymous (according to Dorio) 
with XeTTiScord,'. It would be curious indeed if this word also had an Egyptian source; 
but we may at least suggest, as a jrossibility, a connexion with an unideutilied tish-iiame 
cJiepri, Here and elsewhere I would much rather sugge.st than assert, and a con- 

nexion between chepri and Kvirplvo^ is the merest of suggestions. 1 do not forget that 
M. Lorentz has, with no less caution or dubiety, suggested that <liepfi may be connected 
with ujs^qoD'pi and jUi. 

(j)dypo^. As a sacred fish this is not to be identified. I know no O.Eg. or Coptic iish- 
name which resembles it at all closely; but the Arab name hu/,7,v/;- (jia Aj-ftj) for one of tic 
commonest of Nile eatfishes (Baprus bn/puJ. Kiippell) is very like it. On the other hand 
Clement of Alexandria, taking th(‘ word (rightly or wrongly) to mean greed y. glit/fniini/s, 
speaks of (pdypo'i as a voracious fish with blood-stained fin.s, one of the first fishes to comc' 
down with the flood-waters of the Xile. This is at once recognizable a.s the kdh-i ldxthr or 
river-dog (Hgdrocgoii). a herce creature found m the Lowiu- Xile '■chiefly during llooil- 
time." with great teeth pitJtruding though the mouth be shut, and with fins tij>ped with 
pink or orange a.s though they had dabbled in blood. The sea-fish meiitioin'il under the 
same name by Aristotle, and still known by such corrupt names as rraypo^. cf^ayypi, etc., 
is another thing altogether, a perch-like fish. Spum-i jKigru.-s, L. 

fSropev^. This fish is mentioned by Xenocrates; he is .speaking of the raplxia fSwpicia 
which it yields, and saying of the ti.sh itself — of koI muo'i icrOioeTai. 

I do not know that anybody has pointed out the Egyptian source of the word, but it 
is plain and simple. The fish is the common grey mullet (Muyil ce/dnilu.',-). the bonn. 
of the Xile fishermen; the Coptic equivalent is q'Jpi. In early Egyptian the word does not 
seem to occur, the grey mullet being called adj. or udou^: but 31. 3'. Loret tells u.s that in 
some late (Ramassid) papyri, the form bun occurs. 

vdpKg. This word, which in ordinary (freek means the Torpedo or Electric Hay. is 
included by Athenaeus (312 b) in his list of YeiXpoi Gdue?. and can there be no other than 
the well-known "electric eel.' Jlrdupfiriti'X'S i lectrieui. \\ hde a few other passages quoted 
by Athenaeus mav also refer to the Egyptian fish, and while it i.s also j)ossibIe that the 
I’dp/cg caught by rod and line in Oppian {Hal., iii. 149) may have been that species, the 
above brief reference in Athenaeus is the only sure and certain one; on the other hand, 
many pa.ssages in Aristotle and in other writers refer clearly and specifically to the 
Torpedo. Thus Plato, in the ileno. talks of TrXareia vdpKg t) flaXa-TTia ; and Dioscorides 
and Galen both talk of f; ffaXarna vapKip as though it were necessary to distinguish it 
from another and fluviatile species. It is still more curious that that great physicist Hero 
of Alexandria, discussing the power and penetration of tfn> Torpedo's shock, says never a 
word of the Egyptian fish, but .speaks only of g daXaTTia. 

Xo O.Eg. word has been identified with the ilalaptcrurus; in short, the lack of early 
references to this common and remarkable fish is very .striking indeed. Du Bois Reymond, 
the vreat and scholarly physiologist who spent his life in the study of electrical physiology, 
chose as the subject of his college dissertation — Quae apnd celeres de piscibu-'s electneis 

‘ r. .Moxtei, iiji. '-it., 40. 


4—2 



D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON 


exstant mgumenla (Berolini, 1843). He quoted well-nigh all the many classical references to 
the vapKT) (save those of Oppian), and declared that, common though Malapterurus is in 
the Nile, and although " antiquitas posterior ejus jam mentioneni facial.” yet, nequc upiid 
Aegijptos in scripturis corum hieroglgphicis, neque apud Graecos in mgthologin eorum ex 
Aeggpto profedu, ulla liujus piscis sube^sc vestigia.” After nearly a hundred years this 
remains substantially true; even the O.Eg. name of the electric eel is unknown. 

We have, however, in O.Eg. the word nar, or narou, commonly applied to certain 

fishes of the same family as the electric eel, now called Clarias and Heterobranchus ; and 
all these catfishes, including Malapterurus itself, have a strong family likeness, owing 
especially to their long whisker-like feelers at the sides of the mouth. And this nar may 
be, possibly, at the root of vapicg. 

The Coptic name for Malapterurus is Tpencpi, given in the Scula Magna, of which 
I have nothing much to say; but it does set me a-thinking of a passage in the Historiu 
Aniinalium (ix, 6:10 b), in that curious ninth book which is none the less interesting that 
it is non-Aristotelian and that it is replete with foreign influence. Here then we read that 
the vnpKi] narcoti.'a's, or paralyses, the little fishes which it would overcome, rp rpoirro bv 
eye« iv rm aropaTi — a phrase which seems to batfle translation, but of which no variant 
readings are on record. The commentators have tried to mend the text as best they could. 
Gaza, Camus and Schneider would all read crtbpaTi in place of ajopaTi', and in mv own 
Oxford translation of the H.A. I went further, and ventured to read rpopcp for rpoirn, 
taking it to mean what Keaumuri called "cette vertu du tremble." This seemed to make 
sense of the passage, and brought it into close accord with Gaza’s translation: "Torpedo 
pisces, quos appetit, afticit ea ipsa quam suo in corporv continet fundtate torpendi.” 

But in all this eSort to emend we are obviously prejudiced by the belief that the 
passage must refer to the Torpedo; it would be a different story if we should admit the 
possibility of the Egyptian electric eel being in que.stion. For the electric eel is conspicuous, 
like other catfishes, for the peculiar structures, the long filaments, which fringe its mouth, 
even if they be not precisely iv t® a-bpaTi. As to rpenepi, this so-called Coptic word has 
a very un-Coptic look. As Mr. W. E. Crum first suggested to me. it may well be corrupt 
Greek, and it may even help us some day to a better understanding of the Aristotelian 
passage. 

On the same page, a few lines further down, we come to another and an analogous 
difficulty: where Aristotle (or rather the Ps.-Aristotle) tells us that ‘‘the bvos, the ^dros 
the ■jrgTTa, and the pLvq burrow in the sand, and after concealing themselves angle with 
the filaments on their mouths which fishermen call their fishing-rods; and the little fishes 
on which they feed swim up to these, filaments, taking them for bits of sea-weed such as 
they feed upon.” When I translated the passage, making the best I could of it. I t-ave 
hake, rag, flat-fish and angel-fish (i.c., squatina) as more or less customary renderings of 6V09 
/QnT09, jrgTTa, and piifi: but I knew that the evidence for such identification was worth 
very little, that any small basis it had was biassed by the confident belief that these must 
be sea-fishes of the Mediterranean, and I further called attention to the fact that not one 
of the said fishes has any barbels or oral filaments at all. There is a partial exception it 
is true, in the case of the Fork-beard Hake; but this is a deep-sea fish, none too common 
never likely to be watched at close quarters by the fishermen. But the whole family of 
Catfishes is conspicuous for the long feelers or filaments about the mouth, the Iona 
whiskers of the "cat”; and several of them are amongst the commonest fishes of the Nile*^ 

’ Hist, de VAcad. ropale des sc., aniiee 1714, pp. 21, 22. 



ON EGYPTIAN ELSll-NA.MES 


USED BY 


(;BEEK WIDTEBS 


2'J 


111 short ive should begin to have some hope of understanding the passage if v'e eould 
suppose it to refer not to Greek but to Egyptian fishes. 

Returning to vap/crj, we mav observe that Oppian's aeeount of how tlie slioek travels 
up rod and line, ai-\^a Se | (TTTret?;? SuraKo^ re B(eSpap.ei' t\' 0 aXi)]o<: Se^iTfptp’ 

ea-KTjyjre, or Claudian’s account of the fislierman and the torpedo. ” ...daninosum jiiscator 
onus jiraedamque rebellem Jactat, et amissa redit exarmatus avena.' or Pliny’s (.xxxii. 2. 1 ). 
are all just like the account given by Abd-Allatif. an Arabian naturalist of tin- twelfth 
century, of the ra-nd, or thunder-fish, as the .Vrabs still call this eel-lik(' catfish : "A fisher- 
man who hail caught a ra-nd assured me that when a fish was in the net the same effect 
was produced without the man’s hand ever touching the fish, and being indeed a span or 
two away from it, etc.” 

The Egyptian vdp/crj is mentioned by Horapollo (u. KG), in a passage on which 1 have 
no light to throw; '' Xvdpanrov aco^ovra ttoXAous ev ffaXdaap deXopre-; a^atjvai, vdpupv top 
l')(^6vp ^rajpacfrovcriP' aurp yap, drap I'Sp tov<; ttoXXov^ tmp l)(^dv(OP /ri; OvpapLepovi; KnXvp,,3di’, 
avXXap-^dpei tt/jos’ eavrijp kuI awl^ei. 

alXovpoi;. This wonl usually means, in Greek (jr Latin, the griait Sheatlish of the 
Danube and some other European rivers (Au.sonius speaks of it in the Moselle) — a giant 
member of the Catfish family; it is the great fish which took a yoke td oxen to bring it 
ashore (Ael.. //.Ah, xrv.25). Its proper name in Greek is yXaid^: though the species described 
under that name by Aristotle (H.A., vi, 56b a, ti id.) is smaller than, and otherwise slightly 
different from the common Slieatfish of Central Eurojie (Ael.. xi. 45). The German name 
of the Slieatfish is ircL. or Seilr\ and I have .sometimes wondered whether this latter 
word may not be that tlXcov or i^lXcov of which Herodotu.s speaks (v. 16). — -rrd-TrpaKe^ Kal 
rlXo3ve<f , — the only two words left us of the language of the old lake-dwellers. 

The great European catfish which we know as the Silurus. and which Aelian and 
Ausonius called by that name, does not occur in Egypt, nor of the many catfishes found 
there is any one of great dimensions. The largest of Nile fishes is the great sacred 
Perch, the Xdro? or Xarw? of the Greeks, which has no resemblance to a catfish or sheat- 
fish; but it so happens that Athenaeus, describing the Egyptian Latos. does compare it 
with the slieatfish in respect of size; o'l ip tw NefXw iroTapup ytv6p.€Poi. Xaroi to p.iye0o<; 
evpiaicovTai Kal virep hiaKoalaii \irpa<; exovre'^' d hi oiVo? XeavoraTo? wp, Kal '/jhiaroi; 

iart, TrdvTa rpoiTOV aKeva^opepoi;, 7 rnpaTrXi}(TLo<i; wp tm Kara top Xarpop yepop.epw yXapihi. 

It is just possible that in the bare list.s of Nile fishes w-hicii have come down to us, 
crtXoupo? may be corrupt, or may have taken the place of another but somewhat similar 
wmrd. If for alXovpo^ we might read some such word as aLXovxo^, we should have its 
prototype to hand at once, in the Coptic ca.Xovki. O.Eg. schy, .very, to which words we shall 
presently return. 

On some other Siluroid jf-sAc-v, or Cutjiehes. 

Two out of the many catfishes of the Nile, not very different from one another and 
both very common, are Silurus (Schilbe) nnjstus, L., and Sdurus {Sijiiodonlis) scJudl. It 
seems to have been Riippell (1829) who gave the name Si/noduntis to this latter fish, 
borrowing it from Athenaeus (.312 b). This is the name which the fish still goes by among 
naturalists, but what led Riippell to identify it with that Greek name I do not know. 

The former fish is the common Schilbe. fJU-, which wurd may be ea.sily identified (if 
we are not troubled about the and •s.) with Coptic iseAq*.,!)'. In the short list of fish-names 
in the Greek-Coptic Glossary of Dioscorus, already mentioned, we have the following 
fragment: ti?- cAto-s-. Here, on the Coptic side, we have a word closely akin to 



30 


D’AKCY WENTWOIiTH THOMPSON 


Schilbe: while as to the corresponding Greek word of which only the last syllable remains, 
there are not more than about half-a-dozen fish-names ending in ...tj?, and ctvvoBovti^ is at 
least as likely as any of the others. Again the Greek fish-name a-ciKir-q may well be related 
to the group •xeAq*.!*', LAw, cAfeoT. 

The second fish is what the Arabs call sal or shall, Jl^, and is the OEg. ouha (waha), 
or okMou; according to the Scala Magna, a Coptic equivalent is n-aepc, a word which, 
according to M. Victor Loret. has not been traced to an Egyptian source. As to the 
Egyptian ouha. M. Loret points out that it is certainly derived, like the name for the 
scorpion, (Sahidic) otooic, (Bohairic) t-o-s'o^c, from the verb prick. With 

the feminine form, meaning a scorpion, M. Loret goes on to compare (from Paris MS. 
Copt. 44) n- Of ooe = 1-^011^1011, and he makes the suggestion that this l^OvSiov is the Schall. 
As a matter of fact, the Schall is remarkable for his three sharp and dangerous spines, in 
his dorsal and two pectoral fins. In Athenaeus (312 b) and in Strabo (17, 823) we hear of 
(f)vaa as one of the Nile-tishes; but we are told nothing but its name. I suggest that this 
(j)V(Ta or -ir-vaa, is nothing more nor less than our Coptic 

The O.Eg. word.srA'. p*^, is usually determined, just like by a scorpion; and just as 
O.Eg. ouM gives us a pair of words, one meaning a scorpion the other a fish, so does 
M. Montet {op. cit.. 46) now show us that the scorpion-word srh is alternatively deter- 
mined by a fish, p and that fish (in the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos) is one of the 

cattishes. M. Jloiitet identifies it with Clarias unguillaris, in which, however, there is 
nothing scorpion-like; but he likewise identifies with Clarias the fish called nai', which we 
have taken to mean, more generally, one fish or other of the family — including (that is to 
say) tlie Schall itself. Is it possible that the n-Kcpc, which Coptic word we only know 
from the Scala Magna and which is there ascribed to the schall — is it possible, I say, that 
we dare make a slight transposition of letters, and read in itn-cepu, p-serck, the scorpion- 
fishM And now I find among the Arab synonyms for the Schilbe, the name sarnik, 
which fits like a glove to our O.Eg. p-serek, or p-sarek; and we know that the Schilbe has 
the same sharp spines, only somewhat shorter and less dangerous, than its close cousin the 
Schall. These words, by the way, lead us immediately to Scorpion-town, P-slq, in Greek 
'FA/ct?, ''•Ve\K7]. 

Lastly we have the Coptic fish-name ce^'Ao-s'Ki (or glossed by Kircher crabro, 

vespa). This M. Gaillard recognizes as obviously a derivative of slq, but he assigns it (on 
somewhat slender grounds) to a very different fish, Petrocephalus bane, i.e., Uj, 
of which fish the O.Eg. bes is a well-known and well-authenticated name. I should be 
inclined to put all these names together, notwithstanding that there is some uncertainty 
as to their precise specific attributions. 

M. le Page Kenouf identifies the late word aha (or aba, as he transliterates it), 

with the Schall (P.S.B.A., xv, 105, 1885); but other and more recent writers are quite 
sure that the name and symbol apply to Lutes niloticus, which fish is very plain, in the 
form on the bas-relief of Medum (Fl. Petrie, Metlutn, PI. 12, etc.). 

I am inclined to think that the name applies to both fishes, and that the Schall is as 
clear in M. le Page Pienouf ’s transcription from the Eoyal Sarcophagus (B.M. No. 32) as 
Lates is in the bas-relief of Medum. 


1 I think it far from unlikely that the word xcurpio itself may hark back to an Egyptian ancestry. 
AVhether any of the Clrcek hsh-n.imes derived from Korpion (o-Ko/iTrir, ctko/jtti'os) {cf. Athen., 3^0 f ) be 
identical with our Egyptian scorpion-fish is a doubtful matter. 



ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED BY (JBEEK WIHTERS 31 

vcoTihavo'i. In the genus Synodontis (to which we refer both the Schilbe and the 8chall) 
one or two species have the remarkable peculiarity of swimming on their backs, belly 
upwards; and they are often so depicted in tlu' old temple tisliing-sceiies. Exposure to 
light discolours or darkens the belly of the hsh: and this fact is ex[)re.ssed in the Arab name 

haten soda, "the schall with the black belly." transliteratful into the zoological coirnomen 
Sfinodontis hatensoda, Eiippell. 111. V. Loret, in a foot-note to M. Gaillanrs book, points 
out the curious fact that an O.Eg. verb ■••bit. meaning to "fall upon one's back," is always 
written with the sign of the fish as its phonetic determinant; and further that an O.Eg. 
fi.sh-name, sehnoa, |l J derived from the verb, must in all probability refer to the 

very fish of which we are speaking, namely Sijiiadonli.i halcii.sada. Tliere are two otlu'r 
fishes in Egypt, and only two, which have the same curious habit; but one of them is all 
but identical with S. hatensoda. while the other is altogether different. The latter, accord- 
ing to M. V. Loret. is never represented on the monuttients, while *S'. baten.soda is frefjiientlv 
depicted, and ahrai/.s upside-doini. 

It is just possible that all this may throw new and much needed light on a couple of 
fish-names recorded by Athenaeus (294 d), vwTihavo^ and tirti'WTtZevs. the one from an 
Aristotelian fragment, the other mentioned by Epaenetus. who was a poet of the cookery- 
book and very likely an Egyptian. In the former fragment; 'A. KivrpLvijL' rivd ya\eup 
ehai TOP vooTioavvv, which I suppose we may translate; "Aristotle .says that Centrina is 
a sort of shark called (also) Xotidanus." In the other case, as Atlnmaeus j)uts it ; ’E 7 ran’eTo>' 
ev Oyl/aprvTiKw, iwcvcoTiBea Ka\ei, yeipoi'a o' etrai top Kempii’ijr ica'i cvaooSy) • yrtopi^tcrdai 
Be i/c Tov Trpos Trj Trpmrp Xocpta e’X^eii' Kei’rpor, twc 6p.oecBdn> ovk e-y(oi'T(oi'. It is not clear 
how much of this comes from Epaenetus and how much is added by Athenaeus or bv the 
scribe. We seem at any rate to be told that voiTioavo'i or eTripvTiBeui; is a fish known bv a 
sharp spine in its front fin, a structure which the allied species — presumably of sharks or 
dogfish — do not possess. With .sea-fish and ^Mediterranean tisii in our minds it i- of 
sharks or dogfish that we cannot help thinking; and we find that among these oidv one 
small family possess spines in their dorsal fins. The only species of this family wliich need 
concern us are the common Picked Dogfish, or "Spur-dog." .Icanthias rnlparis. Risso 
{Squalns ncantliius, L.), generally identifieil with the Gk. dKav0la<-. its close relation 
Spina.!' niger. a fish fairly common in the Mediterranean; and the rarer Centrina Saleiani. 
But all of these fishes, and all the rest of the sub-family to which they belong, not only 
possess tiro dorsal fins, but have a strong, sharp, conspicuous sjhne in the fore-part of 
each of these two fins; the di.stinctive character, according to Epaenetus. of possessing 
a spine or spur, irpo^ tij TTp-irg Xocpig, does not hold. Not oidy that, but a> soon as 
we free ourselves from the obse.ssion that we have to do with a shark or dogfish of 
some sort or other, we begin to see that the words p'lyTiBainni ami eTrii’aiTiSevs can viwy 
ill bear the meaning we have read into them, namely that of fishes with a spine in tlieir 
dorsal fin. 

We do not know for certain, and may never know, to what fish or fishes these names 
actually belonged; but I am inclined to think that they were Ale.xandrine names, trans- 
lated or adapted from some older Egyptian name, for the fish we are speaking of. Si/n- 
odontis batensoda or one of its closest allies. The two Greek words become simple and clear, 
I think, if we may apply them to a fish which swims upon its back [vonov]'. and our 
Synodont agrees not only in this character but in other two — being armed with sharp- 
pointed spines in its fins, and being of poor quality or unpleasant taste. The Synodonts 
have a spine in the front part of the .single dorsal fin. and they also have a powerful .si)ine 
in each pectoral fin, close to the hearl. We must admit that \o<^ia ought to mean a dorsal 



32 


D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON 


fin; but in this case the whole three spines make a sort of common armature which, 
making some allowances for inaccuracy, may be deemed covered by tt/so? irpwTrj Xotj^ia. 

I would suggest, then, that we might take the Aristotelian fragment over again, and 
translate it freely: ‘‘There is a certain fish called Notidanus, because it swims upon its 
back {vwTov)\ it is a fierce, predaceous or shark-like fish (yaXed?); and because it is armed 
with a sharp-pointed spine (or spines) it is also called the Prickle-fish (KevTpLvrj).'’ All this 
tallies precisely with what we might say, or might expect to hear, of that close ally of the 
Schall, S. bntensoda. 

In the second fragment Epaenetus likewise associates the fish which he calls eTrivcoTiSev^ 
with KevTpLvrj] and speaks furthermore of the evil taste or smell of one or other. We have 
not far to seek for confirmation; for M. Gaillard tells us of the Schall: “sa chair est pen 
estimee; il n’y a guere que les indigenes de tres humble condition qui ne la dedaignent 
pas." We are reminded of .Tuvenal’s reference (iv, 32) to the Egyptian Silurus, which he 
says fetches but a poor price: ‘‘magna qua voce solebat Vendere municipes fracta de merce 
siluros.” 

As to KevTpivt] or /^ez/T/atT?;?, it is usually taken to mean in Greek the Picked Dogfish 
{uicai'6ia<;), and that may be its meaning in certain passages. But after all, it is only a 
simple descriptive word, which suits any "prickly” fish; and it is, as near as may be, the 
precise equivalent of the Eg. p-slq, and the other words which we have associated with it. 

TvdiXrj (Athen., 312 b), Tv<f>\im<; or Tv<j)\u'rj<i (Hesych., Marcell. Sidon.), is another Nile 
fish of which we are told nothing but the name. The 6 (j»s rv^iXipo';, or TvcfiXco-ijf, of 
Aristotle and Aelian is another thing altogether, and is pretty safely identified as the 
Sheltopusik or Blind Lizard, Pseudopus Pcdlasii. There is no blind fish either in the Nile 
or in the Mediterranean ; nor any which might conceivably give rise, for other reasons, to 
the epithet Tu<f)X 6 <;. I suspect another case of Volksetymohgie, with Coptic Tefir at the 
bottom of it. TefeT, as we have seen, means “a fish” in general; we might perhaps go 
further, and suggest TefeT-'Xeiqi as a possible basis for the Greek name. 

<Tt,uo9. "We find in Kircher’s list of fish-names ni- cvmoc. ^ 3 ^. forella; and this Coptic 
name looks as though it were the .self-.same word as o-igo^;, mentioned as an Egyptian fish 
by Athenaeus (312) and al.so by Xonocrates — if we read with Coraes KrjTcohei^ alp.o<; for MS. 
Kr}TQ)Se<rlp,ov<;. The fish atpo^; is also mentioned by Oppian {Hal., i, 470) and by Artemidorus 
(Oneirocr., ii, 14); but in no case have we any clue to its identification, save only what the 
epithet KT/TcoSeK; may give, c-s'.uoc looks like anything but a Coptic word; and I quote it 
merely to suggest that aiuo<i. ti-ctmoc, may both be plain ordinary Greek: that, in short, 
the borrowing may here have gone the other way. 

Menominia. 

In Johannes Cassianus, De coenohitonim institutionibus, iv, cap. 22 (Migne, xlix, 183), 
we read of the industry and frugality of the Egyptian monks, quibus maxima cura est opens. 
and apud quos . . .pisciculi minuti saliti, quos illi menominia vocant, summa voluptas est. For 
menominia, however, the text reads maenidin, and an editorial foot-note explains: meno- 
minia habent plerique codices, vocabulum Lntinis incognitum; pro quo Ciaconius maenidia 
reposuit, non improbabili conjecture!.. Wiedemann refers to the passage^, but throws no light 
upon the word: agyptisch ist das Wort jedenfalls bisher nicht aufgefunden worden.” 

* Sniiuntitiig der altapiiptisrhi’ii \\i>rter indflip ron .Xvtornu ti ni^chrieheii odcr iihersetzt worden sind, 
Leipzig, 188.3, p. 29 



ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED BY GIIEEK WIHTEUS 


o rt 

f )»■) 


The word however does occur, in the well-known Coptic- Arabic Glossary, Paris i\IS. 44 : 

:«o. Whether or no it be connected with /uau'G. at least the meanin" 
tallies. Matwk, which Hesychius ideiitiiics with a-fxapL, is some small and worthless fi^li. 
or sometimes the small-fry of larger fish; it was the foo<l ol the [»oor. atul n/(Uii/n/ hk ikIoIv 
is still a contemptuous saving in modern Italian. The synonymy of tiie word is discussed 
by Coraes {ad Xenocr., p. 83). 

The word meunminia, or .as.ino.uenH, may be a reduplicated or may be a compound 
word. The syllable men might suggest comparison with yae;e<if<)d (.uen* c-jojt). an alleged 
name for the crocodile, found in the Chronicon Paschali' (iligne. xcii. 3>8r)); and this again 
with the puzzling crocodile-name which MM. Bell and Crum read as i3aiped>Q}0. and which 
is equated with (be., in their Dioscorus Glo.ssary. This word /3aii’e(pii)T has 

been lately discussed by Spiegelberg (Zeildihr. f. dg. Spr., 102fi. 35), who accejits the 
word unhesitatingly, sees in it with as little hesitation the word ,iiai, the soul, and comes 
to the singular conclusion that the latter {)art of the compound word is the name of the 
God Nejjhotes, Xfr-htp, out of which (by a mis reading of imec^teT for iift^wT). the word 
ec^wT has been coined. I prefer to believe that e<^(<)r is a well-authenticated word for 
a reptile, especially the Snapping Turtle, Chelgdra triungui-i, and is the O.Eg. ;XI‘w, 
«pe.s^, as Brugsch stated it to be. 

Mevecjjmr is a curious word, with a curious history. The passage in the Chronicon 
Paschale relates to the prophet Jeremiah, earth from whose grave was Mijrposed to heal 
the bites of crocodiles; and it occurs also in Epiphanius and Dorotheus. all of whom 
borrowed the quotation, according to Du Cange, from a certain "auctor i\IS. de xvi 
prophetis." Epiphanius has it. ou? xaX. oi XlyvirTtoc "'EXXj^ee? Se KpoKoSeiXov-;. a 

point in Spiegelberg’s favour. But when wc turn to the others we find oi), rcaX. oi 
AiyvTTTioi, ^'l€ve<pcod {lege pev e’<^fud),''EXX77e69 & «tX. In short, the word .wciieqioT vanishes 
away, while cqioT is more or less, though not completely, substantiated. This ])oint was 
noted by Lauth in his paper on Horapollo {SB. Eager. Akad., 187b). but seems to have been 
overlooked or forgotten. 

Summary. 

IVe see then that many Greek names of Egyptian fishes, and not a few other Greek 
tish-iiames besides, are not to be explained by Greek philology but are often similar, and 
closely similar, to Egyptian words. That d/Spauk, (i\a,3>'j'{ and Xdroy (especially the former 
two) are Egyptian words has long been known to scholars. I have suggested that dvOla^, 
jSaipev^, giraTO^, Xe/Stay, TreXrr;?, crdXTrg. aanrepStp, TviXp, (f>dypo<;, cpvcra are all likewise 
Egyptian words; and I have suggested, but more doubtfully, that cXta/urG, ^iTnrovpoti (or 
iTTTTovpo^;), Kuirplvos. vdpKrj and aiXovpo^ may also be Egy 2 )tian. 

There remain a good many other analogou- cases which I have not discussed in this 
paper. For instance Mc/peuser = ^fpcH-penuM ; dpia — mehi, mhif: f^dK^o^ = abax', /ier>9 
(Strabo) = ; pala = rnr, adpyo^ = srg: xavva^dnar, (pvKi^ = p-akas, Copt. 

qoT>'Ki.ci (be., pickled fish): all these are examples of apjiarent similarity between the Greek 
and the Egyptian word, which I suspect (though with varying degree, of confidence or 
assurance) to be true cases of equivalence. 


Jourii. of Kfiypt. Aicli. aiv. 


0 



34 


AN AGRICULTURAL LEDGER IN R BAD. 95 

By M. SCHNEBEL 

In P. Bad. 95 Bilabel has made accessible a document of the greatest importance for 
agricultural procedure. The document in question furnishes the annual balance-sheet of a 
large estate for four consecutive years, 8th-llth indiction, in the seventh century a.d. 

The papyrus contains the financial statement of a irpovoTjT}]^. Upovorjrr]^ in later 
times, according to Gelzer, Stud. c. B^z. Verw. Aegyptens, 87, was “not a standing 
estate-manager but a tax collector engaged by contract; irpovopcrLa is the tax district within 
a possessio.” The owners of the estates in our document therefore may very well have 
possessed other landed property falling within the province of one or several other 
irpovorjaiai. Here of course we can deal only with the estate for which an account is 
rendered in P. Bad. 95, and this is the estate meant in the sequel when the “total estate ” 
is mentioned. From the 10th indiction onwards this estate is divided in the balance-sheet 
into two parts, IlpoTdp.ov Scoped and Ilpdcro8o9 Ma/tapta?. The reason why will be 
told immediately. The contents are as follows : 

11. 1-152: account of the 8th indiction for the total estate 

153-253 : account of the 9th indiction for the total estate^. 

254-265 : receipts in kind 
266-278: receipts in cash ^ 

279-297 : disbursements in kind 
298-342 : disbursements in cash 
343-395: account of the Scoped for the 11th indiction. 

396-407 : receipts in kind of the TrpdcroSos' for the 11th indiction. 

408—433 : receipts in cash of the irpoaoSos for the 10th indiction. 

434-472 : disbursements of the irpoaoSo^; for the 10th indiction. 

476-520: disbursements of the wpocroSo? for the 11th indiction. 

From this division it becomes obvious in the first place that the papyrus cannot have 
been written till after the 11th indiction, and this is confirmed by the insertion at 1. 463 
of a rebate^ for the 8th-llth ind. into the account for the 10th ind., to the amount of 
12 nomismata irapd 48 Kepdria. We shall see later'* that it is a question of an annual 
rebate of 3 nom. Tvapd 12, which here in the 10th ind. includes also the reckoning for the 
11th ind. ; this could scarcely have been done if the account for the 11th indiction had 
not been drawn up at the same time as that for the 10th ind. Moreover, our document is 
a fair copy, and so not an original. That seems to me proved by the fact that in 1. 241 
the total is given as 77 nom. 15 ker. (in reality it tots up to 77 nom. ker.), while at 

1 Bilaliel, P. Bad. 4, p. 148: “[npordpou Swpfd?].'’ That will not suit, since 11. 1-253 contain the 
receipts and disbursements both for the lands included under the bapca in the 10th and 11th indictions 
and for those which are counted in these years under the crpocoSos. 

- Bilabel, P. Bad. 4, p. 148, assigns 11. 265-278 to the wpocrnSos, wrongly, in my opinion, since the 
receipt total of 1. 278 = 80 nom. 114 ker. is reckoned in the account for the dapca, 1. 341. 

2 Kovcf)/ in 11. 115, 116, 2:i5, 236, 3i:l, 314, :326, 370. 374 should be resolved with Wilcken, ArcMr, viii, 
92, into Koij<^(a)t')=jars, elsewhere into Knv(j>{i<Tp.ov) — voh^tii. 

^ Cf. p. 39. 


[- of the Scoped for the ] Otli iudiction. 



AN AGIUCULTUKAL LEDGER IN J’. I’.AD. 1)5 


oo 


1. 'lil it appears as 77 nom. ker., the error of \ ker. having been corrected for no 
visible reason. Further, at I. 363 in the account for barley, the total disbursement stands 
at 41 artabas, though the true reckoning amounts to bs artabas, but tlie balance is given 
correctly as 58| artabas, which demands a total disbursement of IS artabas. 

In our document the receipts are not presented item Ijv item every year — jtrrhajis tor 
the reason that the receipts were hxed once for all by written instructions from the 
estate management to the ■7rpovoijTrj<;, as in the case of a -jrpovorjTpf; of the A]uon family, 
whose request for appointment in the year dS;> .\.d. is preserved for us in 1’. O.xy. i, I. 'id 
(=WlLCKEX, Chrext. 38;3)k Only in the 8th and Idth ind. are these details given. On the 
other hand the receipts in kind of the TrpocroSos' are Jiot stated in the loth ind. l)ut are so 
stated in the 11th ind. This second detailed statement of receipts after the 0th inil. is 
probably introduced only for the reason that the loth ind. introduces another ajiportion- 
ment of the net product (11. -721 If.) and in consequence from the 10th ind. onwards the 
total estate is divided for accountancy purposes into hmpeti and irpocyohof;. For while the 
net product of the total estate in the 8th and 0th ind. is divided in e<|ual ])ortions between 
three comitcs, i.e.. one-third to each, this same division into one-third each is made in the 
10th and 11th ind. only in the case of the net product of the TrpocroBo^ (11. -721 31). 
whereas that of the Saiped falls one-half to one of the coiitilex, Germanos. and to the two 
others one-quarter each-. The cause of the change in the ratio of .ipportiontnent may 
have been due to a change of ownership arising in the loth ind.; for while in the 8th and 
9th ind. the proprietress of the estate (Kvpa) occurs several times, ami disbursements are 
made to her order® {e.g.. 11. 75, 181) and payments booked for her private account 

' Cf. Gelzer, op. cit., 87. 

“ That can bo proved by calculation from <mr diK-nnieiit : 

Net product in kind from the Scopeu for the ioth and lltli uid. 'll. 2!)U-7 , ;!U2-h; : 

+ 203;'; = 4091 .irt.ibas of wheat, 

92 + .')8.1 = l.tO.f artaba:, of barley. 

Apportioned to the aoines Germanov at tlie r.ite of 1 , to the two other romiks .it J each II. .'iS.-) tf., : 490.1 art. 
of wheat, [loOJ] barley, i.e., the net product of the iapd in kind for the 10th and 11th ind. (1. .' 31 '; perh.ip^ 
to be completed [pv L] instead of [pv cl]. Then the .sum agrees exactly for the li.irley too and correspond' 
to the computation of the half at [7.')',] art. in I. which i.s assured by 1. .'il.S. The tigiircs for the 
quarter .shares of the barley artabas in 1. .738 : [or] and 1. •■>39 : w are in any c.cse wrong, and can be corrected 
from 11. 546, 548, where 371 occur.'. The figure contiin.' a .'inall error of u or 1 such .i.' i.s often found in 
P. Bad. 95.) 

The same scale of apportionment can be shown for the net product of the Scoped in ca.sh for the 9th .tnd 
10th ind. as for the product in kind. From the toUl net product of the whole estate for the 8th and 9rh 
ind. as well as from the net product in ca.sh of the TTpSernSns for the 10th .ind 1 1th md. (II. .521 tf. 36.") nom. 
,5t ker. are available, according to 1. 531. Of this amount the comes Germ.inos receives (11. 532-1) 121 nom. 
2-2 ker., the other two 121 nom. 22 ker. (i.e., 4) e.ich. 

From the total estate the comes Gormano.s receives in ca'h for the whole four year' 154 nom. 41 ker,, 
the other two each 138 nom. Ij ker. (11. 544-8). 

There remains therefore still to be assigned : 

For the comes Germanos 32 nom. 64 ker., for the other two caih 16 nom. 3} ker. That i' exactly 
the half and quarter c.ich of 64 nom. 13 ker.=the net product of the Scaped in c.ish for the 10th .tnd 11th 
ind., i.e., 33 nom. 21 ker. -b 30 nom. 16 ker. (11. 342, 396j. 

3 Bilabel supplies (c/i note on 1. 62) e^{oSiaa-pov) and take.s the sen.se to tjc “expensc.s, expenditure." 
But in 1. 107 occurs: e^'pSiaapoi) rrjs a(iV^S') tI/s yecopy'ias: ’.\p cavosi) Kep aTia) S" {avTrjs = Kvpas from 
1. 103), i.e., not expenditure for the Mistress but for agricultural purpo.ses. One could, however, tran.'l.ite 
e’^oStaerpos by “order for disbursement,” as in Airhie, iv, 117, 14 (rf. Preisigke, Wcjeterbiich, s.v. e^oSiaa-p6s(. 
In that case such disbursements would be made upon written instructions signed by the Mistress, while 
the frequently occurring term '' dyp'dcpcav)” viould mean disbursement.s without such written authoritv. 
i,Cf. 1. 166; dyp{d(j)<av) tjjs nvp.as).) 


5—2 



36 


M. SCHNEBEL 


{e.g.. 11. 76, 239), the Kvpa drops out of our document from the 10th ind. onwards and the 
payments for her private account cease. But since the revenues from the 8th and 9th ind., 
when the Kvpa was still in evidence, are also apportioned to the new owners, the change 
of ownership would seem to have taken place by inheritance. 

When the receipts are not entered in detail, it yet happens occasionally that a brief 
note of their amount precedes the detailed entries of disbursements, e.g., 11. 155, 343, 475. 
From one of these notes we can also detect the one alteration in the extent of the total 
estate to occur in the four years. In the 9th ind. an addition is made (for what reason our 
papyrus does not show), the yeeopyiov tow ’ilviavla-Kov (1. 155), with an increase in the 
quota of cash receipts for the total estate from 175 nom. 6 ker. in the 8th ind. to 
222 nom. 16 ker. in the 9th ind.^ This latter sum holds good also for the receipts in cash 
of the 10th and 11th ind.^ 

The receipts due in kind amount in the 8th ind. to 101 Of art. wheat® and 1094 art. 
barley (1. 81 ), in the 9th ind. to lOOd J art. wheat and 109J art. barley (1. 154), in the 10th 
and 11th ind. to lOlOf art. wheat^ and 109J art. barley each year. The figure for barley 
is therefore the same for all the years, while in the 9th ind. it is smaller for wheat by 
artabas than in the remaining three years. It is a striking fact that our document does 
not account for this minus in the 9th ind.® Rating then the artaba of wheat at 1| keratia^ 
and the artaba of barley at IJ ker.® the percentage of receipts in cash for the 8th ind. 
amounts to 71'86, for the remaining years to about 76‘45, and of receipts in kind to 28-14 
and 23 ’55 respectively. The majority of the debtors pay either in cash or in kind, only 


' Supply in I. 154: Kpi^cdrjs) (apra/Sat) p&h IvoifiicrpaTa) poe icftpario) r] (cf. 11. 55, 145), and in 1. 155: 
’Qiiiavi(rK{ov) [vo{pt(TpaTa) pf] K(eparia) t (of. 1. 277). The sum of both figures gives then the total in 1. 155 = 
222 noni. 16 ker. 

^ Receipts due: 10th ind. from Swpeu 80 nom. 11.1 kor. d. 27S) 

„ „ 0 nom. 9 ker. (1. 342) 

„ Trpoo-oSos 141 nom. 19?. ker. (1. 4.33) 

Total 222 nom. 16 ker. 


11th ind. from Smpfd SO nom. 20?, ker. (1. 395) 

„ irpoa-oSos 141 nom. 19,1 ker. (11. 475, 617) 

Total 222 nom. 16 ker, 

5 1. SO : total of disbur.'ements in wheat 743 art., stock remaining 267|i art., receipts therefore 
1010^ .irt. 

* From Smpea in each year 4454 art. wheat 106.1 .art. barley dl. 265, 344 ; 362-3) 

TTpoaoSos .565 „ 3 dl. 442-3; 407, 475) 

makes 10104 art. wheat 109.1 art. barley 

Of receipts in kind [nvpov, (aprapai) <i,3 arc left out of account, this item being converted into cash and 
entered in the cash receipts. Cf. 11. 19, 55, 264, 265, 342. (The ,3 has the fraction stroke onlv in 1. 19, but 

presumably in all places 1| is to be read.) Wheat is otherwise called a-lros in our document but in these 

five places a symbol seems to stand which Bilabel resolves into irypus. Now in P. Bad. 95 wheat is valued 
at 14 kevatia the artaba or 12 art. to 1 nom. -n-apa 6; thus 11. 67, 147, 250. In 1. 237, curiously enough the 
rate is only 1 keration, tor which I can find no explanation, dhe (iTvpoi) (^aprafiiii) a[3 arc however rated, 
perhaps sold, at 9 keratia (11. 55, 342;; that would correspond to a price of 54 ker. the artaba. Such a 
difierence in price is quite incomprehensible and cannot be explained either by a difference in quality or 
by a hypothetical artaba of larger size. The price is more than 3,} times as high as the normal. When, 
e.g., permission is given to the farmers of Panit to cover money payments amounting to 7 nom. irapa 35 
by delivery of 56 artabas of wheat, thus reckoning the artaba at 2) ker., this is repeatedly and expressly 
denoted rebate (11. 192, 453, 499). 

^ Cf. also p. 37, note 2 below. 

e According to 11. 148, 251, where 15 artabas barley are estimated at 1 nom. Trapa 6. 



AN AGHKA'LTUHAL LEIKJEK IN P. 15AI). Df) 


• >/ 


four pay partly in one and partly in the otlier^. Amoii<? the receipts we liud the nait of 
an oil-mill and of a bakery, also more than once hire for stables and KeWia. This last 
term the editor would translate cellars, but rooms could also ((uite well be nnaint. The 
receipts, however, derive chietiy from payments for lands. A.s we are not told their extent, 
it is unfortunately impossible to ascertain whether such payments were high or low. 

Let us now turn to the consideration of disbursements, which by their nature couM not 
remain stable but varied from year to year. The imlividiial figures for disbursements must 
first be ascertained and then brought into relation with the receipts. The first items 
entered in cverv account year, whether in kind or cash, and whether for tin' total estate 
or for Scoped and irpoaoEo-i. are the deductions for the ^pjjboaLov. i.c.. the state ta.xes. The 
fact that a part of the payments of the coloiii are deducted for the state by the landlord 
is. as a matter of fact, only a continuation of the practice followed dc fcirtn in Ptolemaic and 
in Koman times. In leases of this period between private landowners and their private 
lessees the express condition is frequently found that the landowner assumes responsibility 
for the state taxes, naturally taking it out of the rent. The taxes in the fith and KJth 
ind. amount to: 

In kind ; 

11. 157. 436 vTrep Srjp.ocrLov ' Epp,ovTr6\efo<; "heat" 

158, 280 ., ., IleVXci 71, 1 .. .. ■ 

150,137 ., ,, ' KppovTToXeo)'; Sid Tov 

aTraiTTjTOV (tltikwv lOfS ,. 

287-J art. wheat wortli 

1-1 ker. the art. = 17 iioni. 22^ ker. 

and in money: 

11. 189, 148 virip Sr]p.oa-Lov /cT?/<reco? 'Epp.onTrdXew'f 1.3 nom. izapd 1| = 12 nom. 22 j ker. 

19U, 299 ,, ,, IlecrXa avv Kcopn]^ oiKoi^ 6 nom. Is ker. 

191, 449 vTrep vavXov 1 nom. 1 [ ker. 

Total yield of ta.xes .38 nom. 10] ker. 

' The fruit grower of Thaluiooii, the ydopyim’ 'Svixiixfas, the yeapymv Ilni'iT .Uid the hoilN iif .S.UMpioli. 
see 11. 259, 272, 402, 403, 40.'), 414, 41.'), 421, 423. tVlictlior in .-idditic.ii the <lehti.r of 11. 401 and 418 is 

the .same per'on I do not venture to decide. 

- The item vnep Sripoirlov 'Ep^ioujTilXfoJs i.s assigned 'a.< .aho in the 11th ind.. see 1. 477 i two ainounl.., 
104;j and 113 art. In the rating of the ruOXor for thC'O artaba.s .'11. 191, 449, 49,')} stand the^e words: 
vav(\ov) Toiv o-Ktov) [aprajiav) p8.i nadap vo[pitTpa, a tc'fpiiTia. ad. Bd.diol hesitates in his notes to 11. 191 
and 495 between Ka6ap{nif) and Kadap <ovj as the I'esolntion of KaOap . Aow the .suiiis in the individual 
entries in P. Bad. 95 arc quoted either in noraismat.i -npii // or in nond'.ni.it.i .<■ koratia y, and from the 
sum totals and the conversions ihereiii made into Kn&upii ropirrpdTa it heeoincs cle.ir heyond a douiit th.it 
the numbers after rrapa signify keratia to lie .suhtr.icted, while in entries iioiii. ker. y the kurati.i ,ire to 
be added. In entries without keratia the nomisni.it.i in the individual entries are termed eforad/ia, wi-'ji- 
Ka6apd. while the expression KaOapa voplirpaTa i.s employeil exclusively tor a tot.d of nornismat.i w'orth 24 
keratia each in cases where keratia are deducted or added in converting a sum of uomi.srnat.i, and is „prer 
u.sed in single items. There is therefore to my mind no eround whatever for assuming a deviation just at 
11. 191, 449 and 49.3, fur resolving Kadap! into Kadap dv) and ap))lying il to vdparpa. it is rather to he 
construed with dpraliaiv and to he resolved into Kadap' wv . In that c.ise it is e.vpressly stated th.it the 
104H artabas are clean wheat. We know- moreover that only c.irel'ully cleaned gr.uii w.is .icceptod in tax 
payments. The 113 artaba.s must therefore have been wheat not yet cleaned. While however in the 9th ind. 
only 104r; art. are reckoned in the summing up, in the loth and 11th ind. the whole 113 .irt.ihas are 
reckoned j so the TrpovoTjTtjs has doubtless overlooked .in eiroi ot 8,. iLitab,is to the dotiinient ot the estate 
ow-iiers. The ditference of 81 artahas is the same as the deficit of the receipts due in kind for the 9th ind. 
as compared with the 10th and 11th ind., hut no ci>iuiexion lan he estiblished between the.se two amounts. 
The item virip Srjpoa-iov nia-Xa always tigures in the same terms at 77 J .ind 74,! art. (11. 158, 280, 340). 



38 


M. SCHNEBEL 


111 the nth ind. also the tax yield is the same, for in my opinion 1. 494 is to be completed : 
vo{fi[afiara) t [7 ■n(apa) a] Ld. As above remarked, the taxes always stand at the beginning 
of the disbursement items. Line 495 contains the vavXov for the 104| clean artabas, 
therefore this entry must have been preceded by the money tax for the kttjo-k ((f. 
11. 448-9). The separation of these two entries in the 8th and 9th ind. by the disburse- 
ment vTrep ^ppLOffiov Ileo-Xa (not, however, in the 10th and 11th ind.) is to be explained 
by the fact that the latter entry belongs to the account for the Sayped and is quoted there 
in the 10th and 11th ind. as well (11. 299, 361), while the money tax for the Krrjan: and the 
vavXov are assessed under the irpoa-oBot;. The wording of 1. 494 I cannot restore; it must 
have been much shorter than that of 11. 445-8 which have the same purport. Assuming 
the correctness of the supplement in 1. 494, the same tax total and the same tax items 
result for the 11th ind. as for the 9th and 10th ind., 11. 346. 365, 477-8, 494-5. Since 
we shall see that in the 11th ind. the receipts of the total property suffered severely from 
an insufficient inundation, the continuance of the state burdens at the same figure is very 
remarkable. 

Of the total tax yield for the 9th-llth ind., amounting to 38 nom. 16| ker., 17 uom. 
22| ker., or almost 47 '36 "/^, are defrayed in kind, while we have seen above that pay- 
ments in kind figure at only 23-55 °/„ of the quota of receipts. The state obviously, even 
in later times, set a particular value on receiving the payments in kind, being in need of 
these for the provisioning of Alexandria and Constantinople. For the 8th ind. we must 
assume a smaller total yield of taxes, seeing that the yeuypyiov tov 'ClviavLo-Kov was not 
added to the total estate till the 9th ind. Nevertheless, the money taxes are exactly the 
same as in the 9th-llth ind. Although therefore the yewpyiov tov 'D.viavL<TKov was subject 
only to money payments and indeed to the considerable amount of 47 nom. 10 ker. 
(1. 277), the taxes in kind in the 8th ind. must have been lower than in the last three years. 
That inference ought to have been patent from the entry vTrep Brj^oalov TlecrXa, for later 
on the yecopyiov tov ' HviaiiLa-Kov counts as part of the Scoped and its taxes are found under 
the S-ppLoaiov ITeo-Xa (11. 280, 299, 346, 365). Unfortunately this entry for the 8th ind. has 
not survived and col. 4 shows too many gaps precisely in the figures for a restoration to 
seem possible^. 

Disbursements for taxes are most often, but not always, followed by those for rebates 
{Kov^iapoc), but the latter do not always stand one after the other as with tax disburse- 
ments. These rebates are in no single case deducted under the receipts from the item to 

We must assume that this tax also was paid in clean grain. While therefore the difference between cleaned 
and uncleaned wheat amounts in the case of Stj/iotriov 'Ep/j.ov7r6X«os to some 7-37 %i m the case of 
Sr/pua-tou Ilf <rXa it amounts to only 3-89 7o- This difference cannot to my mind be explained only by 
difference in kinds of wheat which is what Bilabel supposes in his note to 1. 157. So long as we do not 
know for certain how the ad/ which frequently occui-s in these taxation entries should be resolved (the 
resolution into ddXaa-Tos [with the translation “unthreshed”] a.s Bilabel tentatively proposes, loc. dt, seems 
to me rather risky in view of 1. 346 where 77 J art. pwapov are equated with 74J art. dB/ trirov), we shall 
hardly be able to find a basis for the right solution. In the case of the taxes paid to the dwatTi/r^r a-iriKav 
there staud.s alway.s only one figure. 

1 Since disbursements alway.s begin with the tax items, the two lost linos at the beginning of col. 4 are 
to be restored according to 11. 157-8; 

vn(fp) Srjpoa-lov ‘Eppovn/nXftos) (ti(tov) {dpTa^mX The pertinent numbers are 104n art. clean wheat 
and 113 art. “ddj ” ; which of the.se two numbers was counted in the reckoning up it is impossible to say. 
vir/ip) Sr}poa'(iov) IlfcrXa ctl/tov) (dpra^ai) 

1. 56 is to be restored, at least as far as its sense goes (cf. 1. 159) : 

[v’r(fp) hr]p{na-lov) 'Epp{ov7rd\ca>s) 8(ta)] roC diraiT/riTov) mr/iKav) [o-i(roii) (dpTajiai) prjy’]. 

Since the tax items of 1. a and 1. .56 in the 10th and 11th ind. are counted under the Trpoa-oSos and 
refer consequently to land thereto belonging, and since the.se pieces of laud underwent no change in the 



AN AGKICULTURAL LEDGER IN P. BAD. 95 


39 


which they refer — perhaps because the individual items wore laid down for the ■7Tpovo7}T}'/<i 
on the part of the landowners — but are always entered as disbursements, although they 
were not really so. For example, when Victor of I'ois in the 11th ind. (11. 401, 186) ha.s 
his whole rent remitted to him, that hajjpens because he cannot pay. and it is out of the 
question that he paid the rent, which was then made over to him again. Bi'cause of these 
remittances the impression given In’ the receipts i.s a little falsihed, some of them 
recurring annually during the four years coyere<l by our document, so that a difference 
arises between estimated and real receipts. Here we must mention ])articularly th(‘ receipts 
from the Panit estate, which figure among the receipts at 1.3 nom. irapa 65. 101 artabas 
wheat, and in addition 56 artabas wheat “dj/Ti I’opia/xaTojv f Trapa Xe ’ ; in the actual 
receipts 7 nom. irapa 35 “ avrl ctltov dpra/Smv figure as disbursement and remittanc(', 
so that in reality the receipts from the Panit estate amount to 6 nom. irapd 30 - 1 nom. 
18 ker., and to 160 artabas wheat, which, at the rate of 1.' ker. the artaba. produces 
10 nomismata. in all therefore to 14 nom. IS ker.. whereas in the estimate the figure stands 
at 13 nom. jrapd 65== 10 nom. 7 ker., 160 art. wheat 10 nom.. total 30 nom. 7 ker. 
Thus the actual receipts from Panit are lower by 5 nom. 13 ker. than appears frf>m the 
estimate. Further annually recurring rebates are: 

15 artabas wheat to the irapaplrp^; of Thalmoon^ (at IJ ker.) = 0 nom. 221 ker. 

3 nom. 14^ ker. for hire of stables and KeXXia in Thalmoon® 

1 nom. Trapd 5 for a dovecot in Thalmoon^ 

3 nom. Trapd 12 to tottlov Kdaropos' ’ 

4|^ ker. for cf)6po^ (TTrepp.drwv^ 

3 ker. to jempjiov ’IcnScdpov' 

1^ ker. for stable hire at Hermupolis* 

In all 

and with addition of the balance from Panit 5 13 


- 3 

.. la .. 

(I 

., 19 ” .. 

— 2 

,. 12 .. 

--- f) 

4 .’, ., 

= u 

., 3‘ .. 

--= i» 

„ i -J .. 

8 

nom. 5 ker. 


Total 


13 nom. 18 ker. 


The actual receipts every year arc smaller by this sum than the receipts due''. 


Oth ind. a.-, compared with tlio &th ind., wo may insert Iti the 8th ind. for those itoin.s the .s,'Oiio liguro', as in 
the 9th ind., and supply further . 

1. 57 [KOV(j>(i(TfiOV t rjair v(o<j>vT{av) (''t. 1. 161). 

1. 59 [KOVcf>Ua-fioi)] ‘Arp^-o?, etc., iri Voo; (iiprd,3(U i( (cl. 11. 104, ^85, 318). 

I. 60 KoXaplas [0«Xpooc o-i(rou) (apra^r];] a [cf. 11. lO-’l, llSl, 34i ). 

For 11. 7)8, 61 and the figures for 1. 62 I have no ■supplement to [UTipo^o. For 1. 61 the Mippleinent 
7 r(apd) seein.s improbable as we are dealing with di.sbursenients. It might po.ssibly tre.it of the s.-mie di.s- 
bursement as 1. 165 for the 9th ind., but that is quite iincert.iin. 

For an approximate calculation of the figures for 1. 62 see below, p. 43, note 2. 

^ See 11. 44, 87, 192, 402, 405, 423, 453, 499. 1. 44 i.s to 1 h= restored : [tt «/»« ■] rwv yffcopy' dir, IlcirtVj. 

2 See 11. 259; 59, 164, 282, 348. ■■ See 11. 26-8, 273-5; 88-97, 191, 194-202, 3(Xi-3o9, 366. 

* See 11. 33, 276 ; 99, 204, 310, 367. 

See 11. 30, 410, 463. The rebate of 12 nom. Trapd 48 for the 8th-llth ind., entered under the 10th ind., 
implies an annual rebate of 3 nom. irapd 12, as is clear from 1. .507, where a further special rehate for the 
11th ind. is deducted not from the original p.aymont of 18 nom. irapd 72 hut from 15 norii. rropd 60. Lino 
30 mentions a payment of 28 nom. napd 72, which is presum.ibly a clerical ernu- [or a rnis-re.tding. — Eih], 
for the insertion of 18 nom. wapd 72 in 1. 410 produces the sum total of estimated receipts (222 nom. 
16 ker.), which remains con.stant for the 9th-llth ind. 

<> See 11. 41, 420; 100, 205, 451, 497. • See II. 426; 101, 206, 452, 498. 

s See 11. 102, 207, 454, 500. The quota of the.se dues is no douht coiiLuned in 11. 50 -3 and 429-32. 

“ No account is taken of the annual rebate of 1} ker. to the heirs of Sarapion, as this is a c.i.se of com- 
pensation for a service; sec 1. 98, where prohaldy koX( ) is to lie read KiiXiaptovd, and 11. 203. 450, 496. 



40 


M. SCHNEBEL 


The rebates not of annual recurrence are in reality not rebates at all but payments for 
work performed such as a new plantation, a KaXaixia^. A rebate of 3 ker. in all for 
three years (8th-10th ind.) to an 6pveoTp6(f)o<: is indeterminate (1. 455). In the 11th ind., 
however, an exception can be established. In this year the land suffered badly from an 
insufficient inundation and consequent d^po-y^ia, which compelled the landlords to grant 
heavy rebates to many of the cultivators of their estates. These rebates are several times 
expressly designated as virep u^p6')(ov {e.g.. 11. 380, 489, 515); even when that is not the 
case we may assume djSpo^ia as the cause in the case of rebates which only occur in the 
11th ind. The rebates on account of dySpoyfa amount to: 


Lines 

Debtor 

Amount owinp 

Lehate 

drht 

404, 486 

Victor of Peis 

134 art. wheat 

134 

100 

207, 309 

ye^pyiov UXovriuivos 

96 art. wheat 

48 

50 

402, 487 

ye^pyiov JJavLT 

104 art. wheat 

52 

50 

404, 488 

'■> )> 

56 art. wheat - 

28 

50 

515 


6 nom. Trapa 30’’ 

3 nom. trapa 15 = 2 nom. 9 ker. 

50 

263, 360 

TOTTLOV Elfco;^ 

44 art. wheat 

20 

45 -4 .5 

262, 361 

TUTTLOV ‘'Apeovos 

108:1 art. wheat, lOnl barley 

361, 331 

331 

399, 483 

yeoypyiov Aovoripuxov 

871 art. wheats 

291 

331 

401, 485 

TrcopapiTTjs Kcvepl^arov 

6 art. wheat 

2 

331 

400, 484 

K^rjpOVOpOL 2(lp(t7rL<i>l'OS 

80 art. wheat '■ 

26i; 

.331 

414, 513 

» >» 

1 nom. 

0 nom. 8 ker. 

.331 

415, 514 

5' -7 

1 nom. Trapa o 

0 nom. 64 ker. 

331 

403, 489 

y€0}pyiOv €v 

95 art. wheat 

31-5 

331 

42, 421, 509 

77 77 

13 nom. Trapa 12 = 16 nom. rrapii 84 

51 nom. trapa 28 = 4 nom. 4 ker. 

331 

410, 507 

Tomov Kaerropoj 

15 nom. Trapa 60* 

5 nom. trapa 20=4 nom. 4 ker. 

331 

32, 412, 508 

Iler/io? y^odpybs *lo)dvov kgi 

13 nom. trapa 52 

41, nom. trapa 171 = 3 nom. 14isker. 

331 


Ma/i/aj in Telbonthis 




31,411,506 

’irraKiOf y€0)pybs \)i'<)<f>pu)V 

11 noni. trapa 44 

3r nom. trapa 14H = 3 nom. 11 ker. 

331 


in Telbonthis 




426, 512 

yedipytov ^IcnScopov 

3 nom. trapa 18 

1 nom. trapa 6 = 0 noru. 18 ker. 

331 

22, 269, 381 

Island in the East of 

1 nom. trapa 6 

0 nom. 6 ker. 

331 


Thalnioon 




267, 380 

y^dipyun' V7](T(W QaXpdov 

7 nom. trapa 35' 

2 nom rrapa 32 = 1 nom. 20 J ker. 

331, 

42.5, 510 

yeojpyLov OcpfoJi 

13 Mom. trapa 0 

4 nom. trapa 2=3 nom. 22 ker. 

:fO-72 




24 nom. 171 ker. "i 




407n art. wheat at 11 ker. 

25 nom. Ill ker. !- 




331 art. barley at li ker. 

1 nom. 164 ker.j 




Total 

51 nom. 21} ker. 


I 

See, e.g., 11. 101, 430. - 

.So reail 1. 488 instead of 57 art. 

" So road 1. 515 imstead of 6 nom. 


* In the quota the yfotpyiov Xovatfiu^ov at Ivenembaton figures as debtor, while among the disburse- 
ments it is the yeapyus ’HXi'as at Kenembaton. There can, however, be no doubt that the two entries have 
reference to one another, seeing that all the other debtors in kind of the TrpdcroSos, under which the entries 
in question fall, have their rebate st.ited elsewhere, except the vintagers of Kenembaton, who, however, 
only pay :? art. barley, and so can have no connexion with a rebate of art. wheat. The .sum due is 
80 art. wheat, the rebate granted is on 87.1 art. That is curious. If 1. 61 were completely preserved, an 
explanation might be got from it and 1. 167), but this is of course quite uncertain. 

The amount estimated is 90 art. wheat. Since the compen.sation is allowed only on 80 art. presumably 
a portion of the lands in question was not affected by the a^po^^la. 

>• Original amount due 18 nom. Trap!, 72, 1. 46.3, annual rebate of 3 nom. napa 12, as above established, 
remaining annual debt Id nom. Trapa 60, on which sum according to 1. oOT the rebate was allowed. The 
figures .show that 1. 507 has reference to 1. 410, although in 1. 410 the debtor appears as navruoMos- yeaipydf 
Toniov Kda-ropos and in 1. 507 the rebate is granted to ’A/3pdp y^capyhs TA/Scirdfcaf as receiver of rebate. 
That the tuivlov Kdoropos was situated at Telbonthis i.s attested also by 11. 46:3, 465. 

‘ It is not certain that 1. .380 ha- reference to 1. 267, but this is very probable ; 2 nom. Trapa 3f is in 
fact exactly J of 7 nom. napu 35. 


AN AGIlICULTUrtAL LEDGER IN P. P,AD. 1)5 


41 


It is most remarkable that the same rate of relief obtains for money as for kind in the 
case of those debtors who receive rebate on both counts, namely the yeatpyla Uavlr and 
ev and the heirs of Sarapion, the first at a rate of 50''/ . the last two of 331 '/I . 

From this we may conclude that prices of produce did not rise, in spite of the d(3po-^la. 
otherwise the percentage of rebate allowed on money would not have been the same as on 
produce. 

Among the disbursements those for irrigation claim considerable amounts^, running in 
the 8th ind. to 10 nom. 11| ker.- For the 9th ind. the total cannot be ascertained^; in 
the 10th ind. 14 nom. 18 ker.^ and in the 11th ind. 5 nom. ker. ’ are expt'uded on 
irrigation, comparatively little therefore in the year of the d/3po;^/a. from which we may 
conclude that it was not possible to repair its conseiiuences by artificial irrigation. Our 
document shows also the hiring of parts of the sakkii/nh^ as in P. Bas. Cojj. 1 (likewise 
from the Hermopolite district and of late date) ; among parts of the sakkii/ah mention is 
made inter alia of Tvfnrava. e'^ycri's (II. 124. 136. 219. 391) is no doubt 

to be corrected to sK^vai^. which apparently means a bucket; see Beij.-C’rtvu. Aeqiipl’i'i. 
VI, 207. Our document shows that the provision and upkeep of the irrigation machines 
in the case of the present estate also were the business of the landlord, as wo know from 
various Oxyrhynchus papyri of the 5th and 6th cent, was the case for the Apion family 
(e.g., P. Oxy. i. 137 ; xvi. 1982) and other landowners (P. Oxy. xvi. 1899. lOOO). 

Very impoitant are the disbursements for new development and improvements. The 
amounts are; 


Fer new devolcipiiieut 
and reed bed.s 
For buildings 
For vat.s 
F(jr reeds 
Yarioiis 


8?/' ind. 

8 Horn. i;3J ker." 
2 noin.'' 

U noni. :31 ker.'" 
— nom. 12 ker.‘^ 


9//( ind. 

1 nom. 17; ker.'- 

;i noni. 11 ker.'" 
H nom. 4 ker." 
9 nom." 

— nom. a ker."’ 


II >t/i ind. 

2 nom. ’. ker.'” 

3 nom. 10.1 ker." 
9 nom. I.-)', ker 

10 nom.-" 

4 nom. 0 ker.-' 


IIM ind. 

— nom. Cl- ker.-- 

s nom. 14 ker.-’’ 
24 nom. ;l ker.-* 

— nom. I'S ker.-’’ 


Total 


22 nom. 41 ker. 


2.3 nom. 14;; ker. :ii> nom. 141 ker. 


3:3 nom. 17', ker. 


* In what follows the artaba of whe.it is throughout reckoned at 1.1 ker., harloy ,it 11 ker. The sums 

cast in irapii form are oonvorteil into .stand. ird .it tlio r.ite of 24 ker., while fraetions of a 

keration lower than } are disregarded as m the document itself. 

- 11. 124-5; 127-9; 131, 134; 13C-9. 

" 11. 219, 222. 224-6, 228 produce 2 nom. 22?, ker. The figures, however, are lacking for 11. 215, 216. 
The former concerns the erection of a dam. 

-t 11.3.3; ;336-8 : 457-8; 4C0 ; 4C4-C ; 1. 4GO no doubt rather th.ui 

" 11. .385-9; .502. " A.'/.. 1. 12.5 where I would sujiply Te^Triiieoe,), not ru/iTr ni’irrree', 11. 1 27 -S. 

■ ty. WiLCKEX, Am/, if, viit, 92 and note 1. 

^ 11. 57, 60, 98, 118-9. In 1. .57 it is uncert.iin whether wheat or lurley is meant. In the calcvil.ition 
I have arbitrarily assumed the former. In the case of the adv.uice p.iyments, 11. 118-9, I have assumed 
e.xpenditure for new development, although .such is e.\]>rossly stated only at I. 119. 

" 11.123,126,1.3:3. '"11.11.5-6. 

u 11. 107 (allowance for a yeaipyia, di’tails ,ire l.-ickingi .and i:30: /nn-dos fncceiKiTlTjr) for the oil mill. Is 
that perhaps the yoieocis-, the crushing machine in/. IIeil, (Jminrhe, 139.) of the oil-mill ! Its liiro amounts 
here to 6 ker. ; 1. 220 its Tipi] to the s.mic, yet here, too, rnoie likely we have to do with liire ; for in 1. 329 
(10th ind.) the npi] trxwiKiTirjs) eaXpdou ^ costs 18 ker. 'Whether we arc dealing here with two machine.s 
is not clear from the te.xt as it stands. In the 11th ind. the item no longer appe.ars. If 11. 130 and 220 
deal with the hire of a crashing machine, it is que.stionable if thc.se items should be reckoned among the 
improvements 

For foot-notes 12-2.5 see ne.xt pa'ge. 

Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 6 



42 


M. SCHNEBEL 


In the case of improvements the reference is mostly to new plantations of vineyards in 
the lands of Thalmoon and Kenemhaton. The reeds required for supporting the vines are 
purchased in large quantities, and the colon i are also induced by bonuses to cultivate reeds. 
Vats are prepared; 1. 313 shows that the production of vats for 61 arourae of vineyards 
cost 8 nom. 15 her. On this creation of vineyards considerable sums are expended. Most 
of the veo^vTa were doubtless such plantations of vineyards or reed-beds. Whether corn- 
land was converted to vineyards or ^^epcro? was brought under cultivation for vines cannot 
be ascertained from our document, neither does it appear whether wine was grown on the 
estate even before the four years covered by our papyrus. We find, it is true, in the 9th ind. 
(1. 227) 18 her. reckoned “ ei? fiera^opav oivov &a\/j.ov ’ and 6 ker. in the lUth ind. for 
“vavXov OIVOV @aXp,ooi/,” but whether that means wine grown in Thalmoon and trans- 
ported thence or perhaps wine imported for consumption cannot be determined. Wine 
does not figure in the account in any part of P. Bad. 95 (it is true the beginning and end 
of the papyrus have not survived). Here we must observe that the rent for vineyards in 
all the leases of the later period preserved to us is paid in wine or must. In the main, in 
our document at least, we must be dealing with new plantations of vineyards, since the 
figures in 11. 227 and 330 are very low in proportion to the large expenditure for reeds. 
Apart from this, it may here be remarked, no conclusions can be drawn from our papyrus 
about agricultural practice except that much more wheat was grown than barley. That 
oil-producing crops were also cultivated is made probable by the presence of the leased 
oil-mill in Thalmoon. The entry in 1. 328 [d<yp(u(f}0)v) Tip.{ri'i) i/]av7'.(ou) tov eXat[oi'] 
H[a]X^oo(u) vpipla-fiaTa) a ir(apd) r no doubt refers to oil produced in this mill from crops 
grown in and around Thalmoon, purchased by the estate management and conveyed to 
properties lying outside Thalmoon. The purchase of oil by the management can be 
established by various pieces of evidence (c/. 11. 379, 503). 

It is a striking fact that our document also includes expenses for wages and for slaves 
although we hear nothing about personal exploitation by the owners. Whether the hired 
labourers were all of free status is not evident, and, in \dew of 1. 316, “ ©eo^d/S?? TraiBl” 
by no means certain; but here wat? does not necessarily mean a slave. How slaves and 
workmen were employed can be seen only in the case of three workmen when ai\ocj)6poi 
(porters, cf. Wilckex, Archiv, viii, 92) are in question. Still one can doubtless assume 
that workmen and slaves had to assist in the course of improvements. In the case of 
slaves personal ser\dce of the master is a possible explanation. 

11. 161, 163, 165, 176, 203. 

11. 214, 221, 22.3, 238. In 1. 214 the number is incomplete. 

» 11. 235-6. 

“ In 11. 233-4, I would, a.s in 11. 372-3, 456, 511, resolve not into KaXa/xiias ) but into KaXu/x(Mi'), which i.s 
found in full in 11. 312, 315, 369, 371. 

w 1. 220. 

'■ 11. 281, 332, 439, 450, 461-2. 

11. 294, 323, 325, 331, 459. The last item really belongs to the Smped but has strayed into the 
account of the npoa-oSos. 

1“ 11. 313-14, 326. 

11. 312, 315, 456. 

-1 11. 329, 331. The latter entry deals with road-making; <?/. Wilckex, Ai-ckir, viii, 92. 

2- 11. 347, 480, 490. 

23 11. 370, 374. 

2^ 11. 369, 371-3, 511. 

2-' 1. 384 ; the reference is to grubbing up sedge.s. 



AN AGraCULTUKAL LEDGER IN P. BAD. 95 


43 


Amount of expenses : 

Stii ind. 'Mk tiid. ind. Wth iad. 

Hired labour — iiom. 12 kor.* — iiom. 4 ker.' ~i iioin. 22,' ker.'’ 

Slave labour 15 uoiii. .1 kor.- 1.5 iioiii. l:! kei-, • i:i iioiii. 1 ker. ' 14 iioiii. 14^' ker." 

Total for labour 15 nom. 121; ker. 15 iioiii. 13 ker. lb iioiii. 5 ker. 20 iioiii. IS.! ker. 

The paid labourers receive as wages corn and money, the slaves corn and clothing, 
both receive oil as well in the 11th ind. 

Lastly we may mention also among disbursements the payments to the private account 
of the proprietress in the 8th and 9th ind. In the Uth ind. only a few items enter into the 
question, withdrawals of cash to the total amount of 33 nom. 2(» ker., and a payment of 
4 ker. for Xivapw t ;}? Kvpa^^, in all, therefore, 24 nom. It is true, we cannot be certain in 
every case whether the disbursement is made for private account or for the estate. Still 
more difficult is the determination in the 8th ind. Still the cash withdrawals of the 
mistress, the corn delivery for her bread, the goods in kind delivered “ 6t? oIkov,” as well 
as the payments to a needleworker and a linen merchant, may be regarded as disbursements 


for her private account. They reach the total of 16 nom. 8{ ker.® 


The facts established up to date yield the following 

total picture for the management 

of the complete estate: 





8//. ind. 


'Mh ind. 



Nom. Ker. 


Noll), Ker. 


Art. wheat 

10lO-,^63. 4 


KM)2i,=.62.1.51 


Art. barley 

Ul9f= 5.11’, 


1091= 5.11,1 


Cash 

175. 6’ 


222.16 


Total due 

243.211 


290.19 


Annual deticit 

13.18 


13.1.8 


ildpoxin 

- 




Actual Receipts 

2;{ii. 3,1 


277. 1 


Dubursenieuts 





Art. wheat 

I, ,S(J 743 = 46.10* 


1. 185 580=36. 6 


Art. barley 

1.81 971=4.21 


1. 186 108’= 5.1IJ 


Cash 

11. 144-52 107. 8-1 


11.248,253 123. 4 


Total 

158.161 


1 64 . 20 


Deficit reckoned abo\e 





arid a/Spcyia 

13.18 


13. 18 


Balance 

144.221 


151 . 2 


Private account 

16. .81 


2 1 


Total Expenses 

12.8.11 =5,5-88 

1 of the 

127. 2 = 4,5-87 ’ 

1 of the 



/ .ictual 


actual 

Xot product 

101.13.1 = 44-12 ’ 

) receipt' 

149.23 = 51-13', 

' receipts 


' 1 . m. 

- 11. 74, 7-5 and los give an expenditure uf 10 nunj. 23 ker. Since, however, the tigure for 1. 62 i-, 
lairt.sing owing to a Licuii.i, the number for the 8th ind. cannot be accurately ti.xed. Now the corn provision 
for the slaves demands 112 art. wheat in the 9th ind., 82 art. wheat and 271 liarley in the 10th ind., 
76.1 art. wheat and 32?t barley in the 11th ind. For the 8th ind. 45 art. barley is reckoned Ml. 74-5'), and 
no great mistake can be committed in a.ssumiug that the number lacking in 1. 62 amounts nioru or le.ts to 
65 art. wheat. I have accordingly inserted the nii.ssing tigure in my calculation. 

■= 11. 160, 208. ^ 11. 284-93, 20.5, 316-22. ■' 11. 440, 468. 

'' 11. 3.50-8, 375-9. ' 11. 482 (where supply [ reiu' TTaJi^lwr)), 503—4. 

’’ 11. 239, 240, 217. In the last the fraction of a keration is doubtless lost in a lacuna. 

“ 11. 64, 68, 72, 77-8, 103-4, 120-1. 


6—2 



44 


M. 8CHNEBEL 


Tdtal duo 
Annual deficit 

d,Spo)(la 

Actual Receipts 

Art. wheat 
Art. barley 
C'a^h 

Total 

Deficit reckoned above 
and d^po)(la 



Hth ind. 



ind. 



Percentage of 



Percentage of 


Incidence of expvnsee 

Actual Net 

Costs 


Actual Net 

Costs 

Nom. Ker. receipts product 


Xoiij. Ker. 

leceipth 


Taxes 



38.16} 

13*96 25*79 

27-15 

Irrigation 

lO.llJ 4-56 10.34 

8-17 

? 



Improvements 

22. 44 9-63 21-83 

17-24 

23.14^ 

8*53 15*76 

18-59 

Labour 

15.124? 6-74 15-26 

12-05 

15.13 

5-61 10*36 

12-23 


^6tll ind. 



ilth ind. 


Receipts 

Nom. Ker. 



Nom. Ker. 


Art. wheat 

10103 = 63. 4 


10lO:-; = 63. 4 


Art. barley 

1094 = 5.11.4 



1094= 5.114 


Cash 

222.16 



222.16 



291. 7.1 
13.18 


277.13,1 


291. 7.1 
13.18 


277.131 
51.21] = 18-e9 


11.296.442 468 = 29. 6 

11.297.443 42= 2. 2.1 

103.224 


11.362.491 

11.303.492 

11. 394, 516-9 


135. 62 
13.18 


225.10] 

8-)7-; = .53. 141 
80.1= 4. -i 
' 121. 3{ 

178.18) 
(A. Ml 


Balance 

Private account 


121.1 

•■>*; 

“ i 


113. 

3 


Total expen-ses 


121.1 

= 43*79 

of the 
actual 
receipts 

113. 

3 =.50-13 77 

of the 

Net product 


156. 

*;• = 56*21 = ,) 

112.1 

31 = 49-87 4 J 

■ actual 
receipts 




Percentage of 



Percentage of 


Incidence of e.vpenm 
Taxe.s 

Irrigation 

Improvements 

Labour 

Nora. Ker. 
.38.16] 
14.18 
.•?5.1 1] 
1«. 5 

Actual 

receipts 

13-93 

5-31 

12-82 

656 

Net 

product 

24-79 

9-45 

-22-81 

11-67 

Costs 

Nom. Ker. 
31-81 38.16} 

12-14 5. 44 

29-27 .33.174 

14-98 20.134 

Actual 

receipts 

17-13 

2-30 

14-94 

9-11 

Net 

product 

.34-36 

4-61 

29-95 

18-27 

Costs 

34-18 

4 -.59 

29-80 

18-18 


Note in this schedule that the addition of the yempyioi’ tov 'D.viavlaicov had a favour- 
able influence on the total product, to which also the fact contributed that it proved 
possible, despite the addition of this estate, to keep the total expenses permanently lower 
in the 9th-llth ind. than the figure for the 8th ind. Whereas in the 8th ind. 55-88°/ of 
the actual receipts is swallowed up by expenses and only 44-12 ' i, remains as net product 
the proportion for the 9th and lOth ind. is practically inverted, 45-87 °/. and 43-79 °/’ 
expenses as against 54-13° ', and 56-21% net product." And even in the llth ind., when 
the a^poxia diminishes the regular receipts by 18-69%. 50-13 °/. of the actual receipts 
goes for expenses while 49-87 7, forms the net product, thus achieving a more favourable 
percentage proportion than in the 8th ind. Naturally savings had to be effected in the 



AN AGKICULTUIIAL LElXGGl IN I’. BAD. 1)5 


45 


llth ind. to reach that result, and .so iio .sort of di.shursemeiits are made in this year 
for plantations, which as already observed were [)articularly low in the 11th ind. for 
irrigation purposes, but disbursements lor imju’ovements are on the whole continued on a 
lavish scale despite the a/Spoxl-a, and surpass in total the ])arallel figures for tlu' 8th and 
9th ind. (that 7Hny be connected with the change of owner). lagging behind the figure for 
the loth ind. only by the sum of 1 noni. 20i ker. Indeed, for vat.s and reeds the n^po^la- 
stricken 11th ind. provides, with a total of .32 nom. 17 ker.. the highest figure for the 
whole four years. Parallel with the disbursements for imjjrovements. labour expenses also 
mount up, reaching their highest figure in the 11th ind., the year of the djSpoxLa, when 
they account for 18'18 ' /^ of the total costs. 9-11 . of the actual receipts, 18'27 / of the 

net product, a very large figure considering that we are not dealing with personal exploita- 
tion by the owners, and so not with the regular agricultural operations. Finally, the taxes 
are very high, amounting in the 9th ind. to 25'7t> . in the loth ind. to 21-79 A . of the 

net product; and since the state allowed no t.i.x alleviation for d/Spoyia (unlike what we 
know from the Roman period) the taxes reach in the 11th ind. the height of .'If-.'lb of 
the net product. 8o it appears that even the great landowner-, and the great nobles (thre(_' 
comites are involved) had to submit in this period of decline to ])ay very great sums to 
the state. 

While papyri already published have ro.-vealed to us much that is ugly about the great 
nobles of the period of decline, we can assert, on the otlier side, that the co)nUes of our 
document managed their estate with great wisdom and great humanity. 'Ihey spent a 
great part of their revenues in improvements (even the expenses for irrigation must partly 
be claimed as such), and in one year, when an accident of nature severely damaged the 
produce of their estates, they remitted to the .stricken tenants .'10-72-l(in' . usually 331 ^ . 
of their liabilities, although themselves allowed by the state no tax alleviation whatever 
in consequence 

* It may he further noted, oii the text • 

1 . 20 shotlld probably he restored [77 npu, totvIov oii'os y]flo>/)y <'« .■ BaXgiloi] vn- nurfxara, 8 1 . 

7 r{apa) Xe. Cf. 1 . 267 , 8 probahly a hip<,i< cnl.iiiii foi' the mere icumiu tli.-it in 'um.s of money with Traph. 
seldom if ever more is subtraoted tii.ui .111 ker.itia one-tlnril of the previous iiomi'inata 

1. 23: instead of Tr(apa) f /. iipa) k, '/■ I. 270. 

1. 36: ^apa[-n-i ioDvos) vtt ep Kpi6]wi’, I'J. 1. tl-i. 

1. 45: [tt rtpn ] yi}]vas [icnl Jla^Xlov cIttu Oivea)]?. a’. 1, 424. 

1. 46: [Tr'apaj XlaTrvnvS: lov yeapy of n77a"Oipfu)r i-u' piirpaTu ly tv <ipa S’], < /, 1. 42.'). 

1. 47 : [7r(nphJ roil' y€(apyt wv arro ’l](r[i8a)^»f>u] ptiTpara y tv apft if], a/. 1, 426. 

1. 48: \_Tr((ipa} ^Appwpiov yfco]/jy ov'. eti., I'o piirpara rj [tv upn a/. 1, 427. 

1. 49: [TTiapa) 'Ki’oiKiTvpos^ npiTT]^oTp(t(p to , af. 1, 42s. 

These tigures and the at love jiroposod alterati.ni in the niindK-r of noinism.it.i in 1. 3o from 2.8 to hS 
give exactly the total of 1. .'>4. 



46 


AN IVORY SPHINX FROM ABYDOS 

(British Museum, No, 54678) 

By JOHN GARSTANO 
With Plate vii. 

During the course of excavations made in 1908 in the necropolis of Abydos there 
was found a small ivory object designed like the head of a royal sphinx, which between 
its fore paws clutches a struggling human victim. This object was originally assigned to 
the collection of the late Rt. Hon. Russell Rea, 3I.P., and after his death was given, by 
his widow, to the British Museum, together with other objects from his collection. 
Artistically of considerable excellence it is possibly also of historical consequence. From 
its provenance it seems clearly to belong to the period of the late Middle Kingdom, and 
Dr. Hall has proposed to recognize in it a Hyksos king, possibly Khian, worrying, 
imperturbably and implacably, a struggling Egyptian. Dr. Hall’s news are all the more 
valuable in that they are independent of the circumstances of discovery, which tend to 
the same conclusion as regards the date. He bases his opinion on the character of the 
royal portrait, which he regards definitely as Syrian and Semitic. This is well seen in 
the profile. He fails to recognize in it any known royal head of the Twelfth or Thirteenth 
Dynasty, the kings of which on the other hand are known to have been typically 
Egyptian without trace of Semitic blood. 

On account of the obvious interest of the sphinx, this brief note is pubbshed to 
explain the circumstances of its discovery. The object seems to have formed the handle 
to an ivory box, being pierced with peg-holes and appropriately shaped on its under-side. 
It was found in a tomb numbered 477. This was one of a uniform series which, though 
broken and disturbed, was sufficiently preserved to enable the contents of the adjoining 
tombs to be separated. They all contained the same class of objects, among which the 
shape and material of beads and scarabs were the most distinctive, suggesting in them- 
selves a date not far removed from the Twelfth Dynasty, but with sufficient variation to 
leave the precise date open. In the immediate vicinity, the discovery of “pan” pottery 
and other remains indicated the Hyksos period more definitely, and this appears in the 
following relevant extract from a monthly report addressed to the Excavation Committee 
on January 30th, 1908, from Abydos. 

The grouping of objcct> ni tUe tonil>f> has proved of some .spooi.il interest. ...tt'e have also added to our 
fund of material bearing on the misty “Hyksos” period, .ind have lately eoiue .icross a numlier of tombs 
containing fine .spocimen.s, in a few ca-^es whole and unbroken, of the curious “pan” pottery, which seems 
to be a survival (or at any rate revival; of the predyuastic art. We found traces of this in former years at 
Esnah and in Xubia, and I have made a note of it in the Ann. ,SV,-r. (viii, 1.3d ft'.). ...The be.st piece is un- 
questionably the .small sphinx in ivory, which is the finest exauqile of Egyptian carving that I have ever 
had the luck to find. ...Some few objects have been found too recently to be incorporated in thi.s report, 
e.jr., a fine porphyry vase, a .stone figure, a model of a house, etc 






AN TVORY SPHINX FROM ARY DOS 


47 


The groups of “pan"’ pottery mentioned have been published with illustrations 
under the title Two Nubian Graves of the Mulflle Kingdom at Ahifclos in Liverpool Annals. 
X, 33, with Plates vii and viii. by Mr. W. B. Emerv, who regards the pottery in the 
graves as of Nubian origin. While there is no doubt of its Nubian aHinities, fragments 
of this class of ware have been found as far afield as Sakje-Oeuzi in North Svria. in 
a provenance of the same period; moreover the large alabaster vessel associated with the 
deposit is comparable with a similar object of the Middle Bronze Age (i.e., the Hvksos 
period) discovered in 1925 at Jaffa in Pale.stine. and published in Bulletin No. 2 of tht' 
Palestine Museum (PI. ii, No. 4941 ). There is evidently more to be learnt about the 
ramifications of these types. 

The following is a copy of the inventory cards of the tomb in cpiestion. No. 177. and 
its neighbours, as recorded at the time. 


TiOlU 4,(!. -M AUK A Os. 

'(!) Kohl vase with top and lid. laiai'sTone 1 i ni' 

A; Kohl vase with top and lid. D.irk stoii(> 4'T i-ms. 

O'' A few heads of gold. 

.f; Two .suuill heada of eiiier.ild : 10 nnu. j 

d.) Two >mall lie.id.s of lapi^ hiznli : 1:1 niin. ' 

/,! ( hie unall head of lapi.^ l.i/iili • l.■)nlnl. - Tliri'.idi’d. 
[ij) (file sin, dl head of aold l:l nun. 
i7( 1 Curious pioec of metal, he, ivy : ;{o niin. ) 

(/) tlmall hall beads of e,irueh,in and glaze. 

[ji One long oyhnJrieal he,id Ho rani.; and one h.dl head. 


Tomi! 477. .Makk a oS. 


hiaoitovy. 

uj Searah of lapis l.iziili. iii'inhed, in line void setting- ±o eni'. 
A; One amethyst bead. 

!■; Two scarab-form heads of st-me. 

[(!• Cue small scarab of red 'tone : S mm. 
i<‘; I’la.'ter eye with gold foil. 

I fj Curious il. list -hki- be, ul 

(/I Ivory sphinx clutching \ntim: .'I'.i mm. long, d4 nini. high. 


Tomb 47'^. M ark A i»8. 


Iiireatori/. 

(a) Tubular glazed bead', hl.iek and blue, from collar, 
(i) A hall bead. 

(c) Piece of .shell. 

■ d) One small bead with rib', 1 due gl.i/.e. 
pt) Three fragments of a large vase. 



48 


WHO SUCCEEDED KAMESSES IX-NEEERKERE^ ? 

By GIUSEPPE BOTTI 

A prolonged study of the Turin fragments of the Twentieth Dynasty Diary of the 
Theban Xecropohs, more particularly the portions belonging to the 13th and 17th years 
of Eamesses IX-Neferkerer and the 3rd year of Ramesses X-Khepermarec^, has led me 
to some conclusions which may not be without interest for the history of this difficult 
period. They bear chiefly on the length of the reign of Neferkerei", the identity of his 
successor and the position of the period known as the wlim mswt or Renaissance. 

It has frequently been stated that the reign of Xeferkerec was immediately succeeded 
by the mysterious epoch known as the whm msict, Years 1, 2 and 6 of which have long 
been known to us, while Years 4 and 5 also occur in an unpublished papyrus (Cat. 1903) 
in the Turin Museum. Many wTiters^ have assigned all the documents dated in this era 
to the reign of Khepermarer, the generally accepted successor of Neferkerec. The facts 
on which this attribution is based are as follows: 

1. On the verso of Papyrus Abbott are three lists of thieves bearing the date 
“Year 1 corresponding to Year 19.” This Year 1 is certainly that of the Renaissance, 
since the thieves in the lists are actually tried in Years 1 and 2 of that epoch (Pap. 
Mayer A, Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052 and 10403). The Year 19 to which it corresponds has 
been ascribed to the reign of Neferkerec solely because it stands on the verso of a 
papyrus whose recto is dated in his reign. 

2. Maspeeo (Les momies royaks, 658) quotes an unpublished papyrus of the Turin 
Museum containing the accounts of three fishermen, in which, in a running series of 
dates, the regnal year changes from 1 to 19 between the 27th day of the fourth month 
of inundation (ro. 1.7) and the last day of the first month of winter (ro. 1.11®). Rely ing 
on the combination of these two years 19 and 1 in very similar circumstances on the 
verso of Pap. Abbott, Maspero assigns Years 19 and 1 of the fishermen’s account- 
papyrus to the reigns of Xeferkerec and Khepermarer respectively. 

* See 1 pdpiri hratici tl-l Mux/;, d! Turiiio, i ( = 11otti-Peet, If Oiornafi' della Necropuli di Tehe 
fa.sc. l-:3). The last of the three papyri mentioned is that known as P,ip. t'haba.s-Lieblein Xo. 1. 

- E.g., tlAUTHiER, Lirre dex rots, in. 1, 216-7 : Petrie. History, in, 185. 

■" Fresh fragments have Lately been .iddod by me to this papyrus (Cat. 2075} and I have collated the 
whole with the utmost care. It mu.st be noted that between the two dates referred to by Maspero .stand, s 
another (.passed over by him) in front of recto 1.!), n.imely day Kl of the first month of winter. It might 
be thought that this date is to be .ittributed to Year 1, not to Year 19, the scribe having in.serted it later 
without noticing that, being the tii-st date in a fre.sh year, it oiight to be accompanied by the year number. 
That this is not the case is clear from the new fragments, which enable the change of year to be more 
closely determined than it was by M.ispero. In fact it is clear from v.s. 1.8-9 that the change occurred 
between day 17 of the first month of winter (Year 19, and day 27 of the same month (Year 1). In line 7 
of the same page there actu.-illy appi'ars to .stand the date day 24 of this same month, but close examina- 
tion reveals the fact that the first 3 of the figure 20 has been crossed out in faint black ink, and the date 
is conse(|uentb to be read 14, and does not .ifiect the (juestion here under discussion. 



WHO SUrC'EEDED RiUIESSES 1X-NEFEUKEIH7? 4<J 

It is apparent that these conclusions do not rest on a firm ba^is of reasoning but 
are a matter of hypothesis. If I am not mistaken, however, the new material put 
together from fragments in Turin and the certainty with regard to tin' date of Pap. 
Chabas-Lieblein Xo. 1 which a closer examination of the jiajiyrus and its contents have 
enabled us to reach^, make it possible to remove thes(' conclusidiis from tin' region of 
hypothesis and to place them on a secure basis. Let us therefore examine them a little 
more in detail. 

With regard to the lists on the verso of Pap. Abbott the attribution of tlu'ir Year 1 
to the Renaissance on the grounds that the trial of the thieve- actually took place in 
that and the following years may be taken as certain, and provid(‘s ik with a fixed point 
from which to set out. On the other hand the more fact that the-(3 li^ts occnr on the 
verso of a papyrus dated in Year 16 of Xeferkerec is not in itself sufficient to as.-ign 

their date of AYar 19 to the same reign, though a .study of the manner in which 

papyrus, apparently somewhat of a rarity, was used and re-used by the necropolis 
scribes leads me to believe that additions made to a papyrus are in general verv litth' 
later in date than the original contents. There are. however, other grounds for believing 
that the Year 19 is that of Xeferkerec, and they are to be found in two new papyri 
which I have succeeded in putting together from the fragments in Turin. 

The first of these (Cat. 1914— 2053 '49.. 40 -2028), a fragment of which was published 
by Pleyte-Ro.ssi in their PI. Lxva {cf. CtAuthier, Licrc drs rois. iii. f-i-c. 1. 218). bears on 
its recto a li.st of 14 workmen, and on its verso a text of a descri[)tive or narrative 
nature, unfortunately incomplete. That recto and verso are not to be a-cribed to the 
same reign is clear both from their contents and from the diversity of their .script. The 
recto bears neither date nor king-name, but of the 14 workmen six are well known from 
the Necropolis Diary for Year 17 of Neferkerei". namely Khon^ son of Ipui (1. 3 =17 A ro., 

2.2), Userhatmer son of Maanehktef (1. 4==17 A ro.. 2. -5 and 17 B vs., 5.43). Kenna son of 

Hornefer (1. 5 = 17 A ro., 2.6 and 17 B vs.. 5.42), liernutef son of Ka (1. 6 A7 A ro.. 2.7 : 

17 B vs.. 5.44, without the father’s name), Kedakhtef son of Amenkhau (1. 7 =-17 A ro.. 2.8; 
17 B vs., 5.45, without the father's name) and Amenhotpe .son of Kenna (1. 10 = 17 B vs., 
5.46). Taking into account the further fact that the script of the recto is identical with 
that already known from papyri of the reign of Neferkerec it seems rea>onable to a.ssign 
the recto of the papyrus to that king. 

The verso, written in a cursive script, leaves us in no doubt as to its date, for the 
two cartouche-names of a king each occur twice, and though in each case one of them 
is damaged the two occurrences together enable us to restore the full names "King of 
Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Khe])ermarei'-8etpenrer’' and "Son of 
Rec Ramesses-Amenherkhepeshef.” 

The papyrus thus proHdes us with a new piece of evidence to be added to that of 
the Necropolis Diary for Year 17 and to Pap. Chabas-Lieblein No. 1 for placing 
Neferkerec and Khepermarec very close together in time, for it is highly probable, 
judging by what we know of the method of using papyrus in the necropolis, that our 
roll was re-employed immediately after the reign of Neferkerec and not after a con- 
siderable interval. 

The other new papyrus bears on its recto two pages. That which stands on the 
right (Cat. 1939) contains six lines whose beginnings are lo.st, written in large characters. 
It is dated “A^ear 2, third month of inundation, day 19, under the majesty of the King 
of Upper and Lower Egypt [Khepermarecj-Setpenrec. Son of Rec Ramesses-Amenher- 

' IIotti-Pket, rit ., fa-c. 

Jouni. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 7 



50 


GIUSEPPE BOTTI 


khepeshef. The restoration [Khepermaref] is clearly certain, for no other Ramesside 
combines the addition Setpenrec in his first name with Amenherkhepeshef in his second. 
The page on the left (Cat. 1932) contains accounts whose nature does not here concern 
us. It gives us two dates “Year 19, third month of inundation, day 7” (1. 1) and “Year 
19, fourth month of inundation, day 9” (1. 7). A third date in 1. 9 is lost except for 
the year, which is again 19. 

The verso bears two pages, of which that on the right is dated in the reign of 
Khepermarec (the first cartouche is lost but the second, Ramesses-Amenherkhepeshef, is 
complete). The year- and month-dates have unfortunately perished. The position is 
therefore as follows. We have a papyrus of which the right-hand page of the recto and 
the whole of the verso are dated to Khepermarec, while the left-hand page of the recto 
is dated in Year 19 of a king unnamed. The explanation is not difficult to find, for the 
large script of the right-hand page of the recto marks it out as a true and proper title- 
docket, written in the characters usual for such a purpose, and inserted, owing to the 
customary mania or necessity for saving papyrus, on a papyrus which had already been 
used. This title served to fit the roll to be used for the registration of events in a new 
reign, as is clear from the contents of the verso. It was inserted either by gumming 
over the old papjTus a fre.sh .strip (an irregularity in the fibres in the two bottom lines 
on the left suggests this possibility) or by using a space left unwritten by the accountant 
of Year 19, without taking the trouble to erase the accounts which stood on the left. To 
attribute this Year 19 to an epoch later than the page on its right is quite impossible, 
for we could only ascribe such a year to Menmarei" (Ramesses XI); it would be very 
strange if among the papyri of that reign, all written in a highly cursive script (the pub- 
lication of the Turin Papyri now in progress will demonstrate this fact), this one single 
example should exist which shows a script characteristic of the reign of Neferkeref, a 
script extremely similar indeed to that of Extract C of the Necropolis Diary of Year 17^. 

We are thus forced to admit the priority of the left-hand page of the recto over both 
the right-hand page and the verso to which this latter forms the title-docket, and our 
papyrus consequently falls into the same category as Pap. Abbott and Pap. Turin 2075, 
giving the following combinations: 

Year 19 corresponding to Year 1 (Abbott). 

Year 19 and Year 1 (Pap. Turin 2075). 

Year 19 and Year 2 (Pap. Turin 1932+1939). 

Now since in the relation of dependence between the years above indicated the point 
of departure remains constant it is clear that the combination 19-1 cannot be accidental: 
and since we have in Pap. Turin 1932+1939 (though not in Pap. Abbott and Pap. 
Turin 2075) the name of the king who stands in direct relation with the point of 
departure it may safely be argued that this king can only be the successor of the king 
of Year 19. But this king is Khepermarec who, to judge by the evidence above quoted 
of Pap. Chabas Lieblein No. 1 and the Necropolis Diary of Year 17 of Neferkerec, is the 
successor of Neferkerec. Consequently the king of Year 19 is Neferkerec. 

Maspero’s supposition with regard to Pap. Turin 2075 thus acquires a definite value. 
What is more, now that the attribution of Pap. Chabas-Lieblein No. 1 to Khepermarec 
is assured. Pap. 2075 provides fresh elements which confirm the succe.ssion Neferkerec- 
Khepermarec. 

The two pages of its recto deal with the accounts of three fishermen, Bekentha, 

' Botti-Feet, Of), cit., fa.so. 



51 


WHO SUCCEEDED KAMESSES IX-NEFERKER£^? 

Kasankh and Amenemopenaklit. The first two are known from the Diary of Year 17, 
and both, together with Amenemopenakht, occur in Pap. (’lmi)as-Liebleiii. Two of the 
three thus continued to furnish tish to the necro])olis throughout the period covmred by 
these three papyri, and the absence of the third from the Diary of Year 17 may be due 
to nothing more than the fragmentary condition of that document. 

In lines 10—15 of the second page of the recto of the papyrus a new handwriting 
appears, identical with that of Pap. Chabas-Liebl(uii Xo. 1 . 'rhi.s again is a fact not to 
be ignored in determining the chronological relation of the two papyri. 

On the verso are the accounts of three other fishermen for the same Years 19 and 1, 
Setekhmose. Ashatikht and Kadet. The first and the la-^t occur both in the Diarv of 
Year 17 and in Pap, Chabas-Lieblein; Ashatikht, like Amenemopenakht of the recto, is 
absent from the Diary of Year 17, Should fortune enable u.s to lay hands on some frag- 
ment of Year '2 of Khepermarer containing allusions to these fishermen the relation to 
one another of the papyri under discu.ssion and likewise the order of the royal succession 
would be established beyond possibility of doubt, though from what has already been 
said it is clear that such further proof is almost ^uperfluou.s. 

The king of Year 19 then Ls X'eferkerei'-Kame,sses IX and the king of Year 1 is 
Khepermaref-Ramesse.s X, and we thus obtain from the papyri we have examined the 
following succession of dates: 

Diary of Year 17, XAferkeref. 

Pap. Abbott, verso: Year 19 of Xeferkerei', Year 1 of Khepermarei", 

Pap. Turin 2075, recto and verso: Year 19 of Neferkere*", Years 1 and 2 of 
Khepermare''. 

Pap. Turin 1932 and 1939: Year 19 of Xeferkerei'. Year 2 of Khepermarei*. 

Pap. Chabas-Lieblein Xo. 1 : Year 3 of Khepermarei’. 

In this series no regnal year of Khepermarei" is missing 

There remains the problem of the mysterious Renaissance, which manifestly receive.s 
no fresh light from the two new document.-- which we have been discussing, and with 
regard to which we are consequently not prepared to give any opinion. For regarding 
it as immediately po.sterior to the reign of Xeferkcrer and consequently as identical with 
the reign of Khepermare^ we have nothing but the combined evidence already indicated 
of Pap. Abbott, verso and Pap. Mayer A, Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052 and 10403. from which 
it is clear that thieves denounced in ‘"Year 1 corresponding to Year 19” were brought 
to trial in Years 1 and 2 of the Renaissance. As for Year 2 the evidence of the new Turin 
PapjTus 1932-fl939 with its mention of Khepermarei' may quite easily be reconciled with 
that of the group of papyri just quoted by supposing that Khepermarec allowed two 
methods of dating in his reign. From Pap. Chabas-Lieblein Xo. 1, dated in Year 3 of 
Khepermarei’, we learn nothing in this connexion, nor do the new Turin Papvrus 1903 
and Papyrus Ambras of Vienna, both dated in the Renaissance, throw any further light 
on the matter. It would therefore seem unwise to exclude the possibility that the 
Renaissance may be subsequent to Khepermarer. It is possible that a solution may be 
reached when the immense material formed by the proper names of the Turin papyri 
has been put together and worked out. Even then the results arrived at may well be 
of the nature of probabilities rather than certainties. 




52 


THE CHROXOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE 
TATEXTIETH DYNASTY 

By T. eric feet 

The Twentieth Dynasty presents serious chronological problems which would have 
attracted far more attention than they have had this period belonged to a more 
brilliant e])och of Egyptian history instead of to the decadence. We know very roughly 
the number of years to be allotted to it, and we possess the names and monuments 
of a number of its kings. It is when these kings are to be placed in their chronological 
order and the lengths of their reigns fixed that difficulties begin. Some admirable work 
has been done on the subject, more particularly by Lepsius^, Maspero^ and Sethe®, but 
little has been added to their efforts during the last twenty years. This is mainly duo 
tt) the fact that tho'e who have dealt with the question will not observe that 
fundamental tlistinction between possibility or probability on the one hand and certainty 
on the other which must be the basis of any archaeological discussion. Once a single 
argument has been admitted which does not amount to a certainty, the whole chain of 
reasoning i.- vitiated. Thus we may read in more good books than one that Rames.ses IX 
(Xeferkere'') reigned at lea.st 19 years, and that Herihor was the son of Isis, a daughter 
of Ramesses VI; yet both are pure conjectures. They may both be right, but neither 
can be proved. 

The present article makes no pretence of solving once and for all the difficulties 
connected with this problem. It is merely an attempt to sum up the position as it 
staucR. and its only claims to carry any weight are that it does clearly distinguish fact 
froiii theory and that it makes use of a certain number of unpublished documents in the 
British Mii.^eum and at Turin-*. 


It is unfortunate that Manetho’s epitomizers have treated us very shabbily with 
regard to this dynasty, for they only give us the number of kings of whom it consisted, 
namely twelve, and the number of years which it lasted, 13.5 according to Africanus and 
17d according to Eu.'-ebiu.'. It is difficult to attribute any serious value to these figures, 
especially in view of their divergence. At the same time an examination of the reign- 
leiigths actually known to us from contemporary monuments, together with the in- 
dications that some members of the dynasty were very ephemeral rulers, leads one to 


■ Li.i'sir.'. I’ls. .x.wviitf. 

- ll.\sPi,U(i. /,'S’ riiijiilr.t dr iJrir r! -B'l/ui rl, in Mrinoli'r^ dr hi arrlirjjloijhjur ti'UiijuUe an 

tuinp pi-finier. P.iri.s, isso. 

’ Sethe, K,. Uiit(:i-.<iirJi,i„ijr-,i_ -a,- IJ,;siJi h:htc n nd Altrrluuiskv ndr Ar.jypt' iis, Ei'stos Heft: Die Prinxeii- 

lilltr roe Jf'Ji/oJ f[u}jii_. 


’ The ntiiin.-'t (.•autinn, however. 
Ilf tl.ciii liii\e lieen used .and i'e-u.s('d 
iiftiai exceedingly dillieult to C't.dili-. 


i,' ncee.ssary in using these papyri for chronological purpose.s. Many 
more than once, and the chronological order of the wirioiis entries is 
h with cert.iinty. even the generally accepted a.xioui th.it the recto is 


alv.i\s tilled helore the verso seeniinglx h.iving it' exceptions. In the case of the Turin papvri, too. their 
fr.igiiientary n.iturc detracts considerably from their value a.s materi.il. tVere all the Turin papvri in 
jiertect condition, wo should be very well informed about the chronology of the late Twentieth Dynasty. 



CHEONOLUGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 53 


believe that an average of twelve or fifteen ycar.s for eaeh king, as ([eniandecl bv the 
Manethonian figures, is b\' no means an absurdity. Brea.sted, who works backward by 
dead reckoning from the Persian Conquest in ol'o n.c., adding together the maxiimun 
year known for each king and making what .i]>))ear to hi?n reasonable adjustments in 
cases of doubt, finds room to allot about flu years to the Twentieth Dvnastv, namely 
1200-1090 B.c. The divergence from the lower idanetlionian figure is considerable and 
that from the higher so great as to throw serious doid)! on the Kus(diian tradition. 

Let us then leave conjecture ami later tradition both aside and ask what can 
be gathered from contemporary sources. The first king of the dvnastv. Setnakht. 
hardly concerns our problem, and as some authorities as.sign him to the end of the 
previous dynasty we shall follow their e.xamjile. This leaves us with a numlier ol kings 
all of whom bore the name Eames.ses. In the older liistories tlnw usuallv number ten. 
but Ma.spero^ has given good reason for believing that the old Eamesses IX. who bore 
the names Sekhaenret-iliamun and Raniesses-Sijitah. is identical with Akhenrei'- 
Setpenrec Siptah-ileiieidah of the Xiiteteeiith Dynasty. This erasure leaves us with 
nine Eames.ses, numbered from III to XI. We shall now take these in order, trying in 
each case to establish the length of the reign and the position in the dynasty. Foi’ the 
sake of convenience we shall adopt here and throughont the article the numbering given 
to these Ramessides by Gauthier in his Lien' dee roie, ni. fasc. 1. 151 if. 

Harnesses III 
Psimarei'-Miamfin 

The length of the reign is certain from the Great IJarris Papyrus. 1. 1. wlieiici' it is 
clear that the king lived into his 32nd year-. 


Harnesses IV 
Hekmarei'-.Setpenamun 

That this kiirg was the succe.ssor of Rames.st*s III is clear from the concluding 
sentences of the Harris Papyrus. The length of his reign is aLo certain from a Turin 
papjTus, Pleyte-Rossi; li-l.v (collated)®. It i' six vears'. 


Harnesses V 


rsimarer-SekheperenieC 

With this king we leave the region of certainty and embark ujum that of con- 
jecture. In the fir.st place it is not cei-tain that .Sekbepercnrei' was the immediate 
successor of Hekmarec Eamesses lY. Our sole guide is the so-called List of Princes at 
Medinat Habu. Some historians. Petrie for e.xain])le. take this list to consist solely of 
ten sons of Ramesses III. According to these writers tin- list must havi' been made in 
the reign of Usimarei'-Akhenamun, Ramesses-Setherkhepeshef. our Raines, ses VIII. who 


1 Ani>. Scr.. -X, 131-S. 

For discussions on the exact d.ite see ti.M i hii.e. /,■ /n ■/ . iir, f,.s, . | , i (;:j. 

authorities there quoted. The a'sieiinieiit to thi' n-i'cn ot tli.- \ i .11 ->1 of [, 10 , M.illet, 1. .i 
rea.sonahle. That the Turin “.strike' l’.ip\rus. Cat |sso= fU ym-liosM. xx\v-\Km coll.ited;. 
belongs to this reign is probable troin it.s ndcreni e to tlio M/ior la 

V.CSPERO, h'S mo,ad.< U(j;? ; SlTI.on.lU.llo, ZrAo-hr. f o,/. .Xy,,-.. XXIX. 7;',; .Aoo eo/. 

•> To the list of dated inoiiuuieuts given by ( hiuthe-r .eld iww C \imiXKlt-l’i,i:r, I -I fit, iw 
PL Ixxiv, Xo. 275 tYcar o j. 


note 2, and 
sei Ills \er\ 
of Vr.ir 2'.l 

X, 1 l!l-.120. 

' S ot .S'//o/p 



54 


T. ERIC FEET 


is the fourth name and figure in the list and the last to have his name in the cartouche. 
This will become clearer if we examine the whole list. 

There are in elfect two lists, forming duplicates, except in a few details, the one of 
the other. They are on the west or back wall of the second court of Ramesses III s 
temple at Iledinat Habu. List A runs northward from the central doorway and at the 
end of the wall turns the corner on to the north wall of the court. It contains eighteen 
male figures, each of the first ten of which is accompanied by a vertical column of 
inscription giving the titles and names of a prince (L., D., in, 214 o and h). List B runs 
southward from the doorway, comprising on the west wall thirteen princes, and turns on 
to the south wall of the court, where there are thirteen princesses, all unnamed. Of the 
princes ten are named, just as in List A (L., D., in, 214 c). 

The names are as follows: 

1. Ramesses (in cartouche). No further name. 

2. Ramesses (not in cartouche) NebmareC-Miamun (in cartouche). 

.3. Ramesses-Amenherkhepeshef-Neterhekon^ (in cartouche). 

1. List A: Ramesses Setherkhepeshef (not in cartouche), King of Upper and Lower 
Egypt, Usimarec-Akhenamun (in cartouche). 

List B: Setherkhepeshef (not in cartouche), Son of Rei", Lord of Risings, 
Ramesses-lIiamuu-Setherkhepeshef. 

5. Praherwenemef. 

6. Mentuherkhepeshef. 

7. List A: Ramesses Meritum. 

List B: Meritum. 

S. Ramesses Khaemwese. 

9. Ramesses Amenherkhepeshef. 

10. Ramesses Miamun. 

If we adopt Petrie's attitude towards this list it is not difficult to find in it the 
names of seven kings of the Twentieth Dyua.sty known from other sources, and they 
would occur in an order which does not clash seriously with any other evidence. Thus, 
leaving out the two princes 5 and 6, who possibly died young, and Meritum (No. 7) of 
whom as a king we have no reliable trace, we should get the following identifications: 

1. = King Ramesses IV, Hekmaref. 

2. = King Ramesses VI, Nebmarec. 

3. == King Ramesses VII, Usimarec-Miamun-Setpenrec, i.e., Ramesses-Itamun- 

Neterhekon. 

4. = King Ramesses VIII. Usimarec-Akhenamun. 

8. = King Ramesses IX, Neferkerec-Setpenrec, Raniesses-Khaemwese. 

9. = King Ramesses X, Khepermarec-Setpenrer, Ramesses- Amenherkhepeshef. 

10. King Ramesses XI, Menmarec-Setpenptah, Ramesses-Khaemwese-Miamun- 
Neterhekon. 

* Lepsiu,^ in one case ( Z>., in, 214 «) .show.s a if.imaged t before the word.s Ntr hk! Iwa^ though in the 
other case (214 r; no .such .sign is indicated. A t would suggest an abbreviated writing of the word It 
“father and would combine with the Atuuu to foriii It-inin, a name of Ramesses VII, UsimareC- 
SetpenreC- Miamun. Sethe therefore {IJ liters., i, 60 - 01 ) prefers the reading without t, the more so as the 
figure of Amun ha.s in iKjth c.ises the /-//epcs/; -sword on its knee, indicating the reading Imu-hr-hps-f raXhev 
than It-imn. Dr. (>ardiner tells me that there certainly never was a t in the cartouche in List B and that 
what Lepsius shows as a damaged t in List A is in all probability a mere hole. 



CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 55 


These identifications are in the main not unreasonable a priori, and we need for the 
moment only remark on the facts that the first is a pure eue.ss. for in tin; last of Princes 
no name save Ramesses is here given, that Harnesses \', I'simarei'-Sekheperenrei'. is 
missing, and that the identification of No. 3 with Harnesses \'II involves the acceptance 
of the incorrect reading Itamun for Amenherkhepeshef (sec p. 51. note 1). It is precisely 
on these weaknesses that Sethe seizes in his masterly criticism of this reading of the list. 

He first notes that if the princes an* all sons of Ramesses III it is strange that 
Praherwenemef. whom we know from other sources to have been the (‘hlest son. should 
appear fifth in the list. Moreover two^ of them (Nos. .3 and !t) bear the same name 
Amenherkhepeshef, which Sethe thinks imjrrobable in two brothers. He also finds it 
hard to believe that no fewer than four- sons of a single king should have followed him 
on the throne, namelv Ramesses IV. VI. ^'1I and ^TII. the more so as room has to be 
made among them for Ramesses V. 8ethe argues moreover that the belief that all are 
sons of Ramesses III is ba.sed on the supposition® that the name.s of the princes are as 
old as the sculptures of the temple, which date from Harnesses III. This cannot be the 
case, however, for according to Lepsius the king-names attached to the first three figures 
are of the same age as the prince-names of these and of the rest, and the only name 
which is different in style and obviously a later addition i" the king-nanu' added to the 
prince-name Ramesses Setherkhepeshef in No. 1. If this is true, all the names, with the 
exception of the later addition ju.st mentioned, nui't date from the rei.gn of No. :D. Now 
No. 3 has generally been identified with Rame-ses VII. But Sethe jioints out that if 
the very doubtful reading Itamun be rejected for the more probable Amenherkhepeshef 
(see p. 54, note 1) then we have here sim]>ly the second cartouche-name of Hanu'sses VI, 
whose first cartouche-name stands under No. 2. These two cartouclu's together. Nos. 2 
and 3, give us the full name of Ramesses VI. Now if the names were set up by 
Ramesses VI and not by Ramesses III. the names which follow his are far more likely 
to be his sons than his brothers, and this is the view which Sethe takes. He gives no 
opinion as to whether any of these sons except No. I ever came to the throne. 
Ramesses VII, now ousted from ])Osition No. -'I bv the second naim* of Ramesses VI. he 
places later in the dynasty, and our Ramesses \TII. Fsimaref-Akhenamun, he moves u]) 
to become Ramesses VII. 

Who, then, according to this theory, is No. 1 ! He is the father of Ramesses VI, 
who was never king, but who, according to his son's belief, ought to have been. 
Consequently he inserted him in the list with a cartouche, but could bnd no more 
specific name for him than Rames.ses. In su|>port of the fact that Ramesses Vi’s father 
never reigned, Sethe brings forward the fact that a certain Cueen Isis, who received 
a tomb by the favour of Ramesses VI, bears the title ’ royal mother" but not that of 
■’royal wife.” This woman Sethe takes to have been the mother of Ramesses VI. 

The absence of Harnesses IV and V from the list can now be explained. We know 
that Ramesses V was the immediate predecessor of Rames.ses VI, sinci' the latter 
usurped his tomb®. We also know that Rames.ses \T sub.stituted his own name for that 

* Sethe s.iy.s three fXns. 2, 3 and !); : I do not luidei'-tand win. 

- Still more seven, as supposed hy Petrie. 

"• This i.s not I'litirely true. Pethik. H'Shin/, m. 13!», -.peak.s ot thi* -liu whidi .ill .igri'e must liave 
been done under Ranies-Os VIII” -'No. 4'i. 

■> It is significant that Le]isius adds th.it all the nanie- .ire more lightly < ut than anv of the undoubted 
liieroglyph.s of Rames.ses III on the .same w.all. 

■' R, D., ni, 223 ff. 



5G 


T. ERIC PEET 


of Ramesses lY on more than one monument^. This establishes the order of these 
three kings. 

According to Sethe, Ramesses IV was a son and successor of Ramesses III. He 
in his turn was succeeded by Ramesses Y, probably his own son. This branch of 
the family then died out, or at any rate lost the succession, and its place was taken by 
a collateral branch repre.sented not by a brother of Ramesses IV but by a nephew 
Ramesses YI, the brother (husband of Isis) being already dead. When Ramesses YI 
came to fill in the names in the List of Princes he carefully excluded the collateral 
branch consisting of Ramesses lY and Y, filled places 2 and 3 with his own cartouches, 
and 4 to 10 with the names of his sons. Xo. 4 afterwards having king-names added. 
Place 1 he naturally filled with the name of his father, on whom, though he had never 
reigned, Ramesses YI's own claim to the throne rested. 

Sethe’s judgment of the lists was entirely founded upon Lepsius’ description and 
figures of them. In order to test this I asked Dr. Alan Gardiner, on his return to Egypt 
this winter, whether he would be kind enough to re-examine the walls and give his 
opinion on a number of points. He has sent me the preliminary results of his examina- 
tion, which are as follows; 

1. The figures are almost certainly of the same date as the main mass of scenes and 
inscrijfiions on the walls, i.e., they date from the reign of Ramesses III. The princes 
are represented as worshipping cartouches of Ramesses III, alternately nomen and 
prenomen. 

2. The names and titles of the princes are shown by the method of their insertion 
in certain cases to have been added later. This was a priori probable from the fact that 
they intrude between each adoring prince and the cartouche which he is to adore. 

3. The cartouches accompanying the titles and names of figures 1, 2 and 3 in each 
list show no sign of being of different date from the names and titles. 

1. The two cartouches accompanying the fourth figure, one in each list, are clearlv 
later than the others. In List B the cartouche is crowded in between the figure and 
the column of inscription, which might easily have been made naiTower. 

5. The uraei on the foreheads of the first four figures are not visibly marked out by 
the manner of their cutting as of later date than the figures, though on the evidence of 
2 and 3 above they must certainly be so. 

It will at once be realized that Dr. Gardiner’s examination of the original bears out 
the accuracy both of Lepsius’ statements and of the theory which Sethe has based on 
them. Chronologically three stages may be distinguished in the history of the scenes : 

(1) The cutting of the figures of princes and princesses adoring cartouches of 

Ramesses III. This mav reasonablv be attributed to the reign of that kini^ 

* * *^0 

(2) The addition of the titles and names, including the cartouche-names of Xos. 1 
2 and 3 but not the cartouche-names of Xo. 4. Within this group no sub-division can be 
discerned, and it may therefore be attributed with comparative certainty to Ramesses VI 
whose cartouches .stand beside figures Xos. 2 and 3. Xo earlier king could have known 
the cartouche-names of one of his successors, and any later king would certainlv have 
added his own cartouche-names. 

(3) The further addition of the two cartouche-names of Ramesses VIII to the name 
and titles of figure Xo. 4. That these are later is clear not only from Dr. Gardiner’s 
observation, but from the fact that they are written in a separate column and not 
incorporated in the one column as are the cartouche-names of Ramesses VI. Xote too 

M. . [>.. III. i!i;i in, 130 ; 0/,. , it., ni, ili'J - ' = T^xt, in, 47-4S'i. 



CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 57 


that, unlike these, they are accompanied by the titles “Kinf' of Uppci' and Lower 
Egypt” and “Son of Ref, Lord of Risings” respectively^. 

If all the names except those dealt with under (3) above are due to Raniesses YI, 
those which follow his own are, as Sethe points out, much more likelv to be his sons 
than his brothers. The omission of Ramesses YII Itainun still remains a j)uzzle. Sethe’s 
proposal to place him later in the dynasty is not altogether acceptable in view of some 
evidence to be considered later which makes it likelv tliat he succeeded Ramesses ^T 
Nebmarec. Two obvious possibilities, however, are cither that be belonged to the col- 
lateral line and was regarded by Ramesses VIII as a usurper and therefore omitted, or 
that this latter king, when he inserted his own name, simply did not take tlie trouble to 
have that of his brother and predecessor inserted as well. 

Thus there can be little doubt that this ingenious theory of Sethe s must in the main 
be accepted. It explains, as the more ordinary view cannot, the absence of a distinctive 
name under No. 1, whose identification with Ramesses I\ was a mere guess. It relieves 
us from accepting the improbability that no fewer than eight sons of Ramesses III all 
came to the throne. It explains the absence of the name of Ramesses \ from the list. 
The most important argument of all in its favour, however, is that drawn from the tomb 
of Queen Isis. The tomb was given to her "by favour of’ R.imesses \ 1. Of what king 
was she the mother if not of Ramesses YI himself? Not. on the ordinary theory, of 
Ramesses lY or V, who are sons of Ramesses III, and therefore had a “royal wife for 
mother. Nor yet of Ramesses III himself, who was a son of Setnakht-, and whose mother 
was therefore presumably a royal wife. There seems nothing left but to supjiose that she 
was the mother of Ramesses YI, and the moment we admit this, in fact the moment 
we admit the existence at this time of a royal mother who was not also a royal wife, the 
view that aU the princes of the list are sons of Ramesses III goes to jiieces. I’etrie, in 
order to escape this disaster, suggests that "she may have been called royal wife in some 
other part of the tomb.” This is highly improbable, for the double title royal wife and 
royal mother” formed such an integral whole that it i.s not likely to have been split up. 
least of all in the formal inscriptions of a tomb, nor is it likely that any ([ueeii 'hould 
deprive herself of so important a part of her titles. 

Petrie further finds a chronological difficulty in belie\ing that Ramcs.'-e.s \I va.^ a 
grandson, not a son, of Ramesses III. He states that the date of the birth of Ramesses ^ I 
is fixed by his “horoscope” to 1198 n.c., and that Rame.sses III was bom in 122-1 k.c. 
Quite apart from the question of what reliance may be placed on the horoscope dates, 
anyone who will look at the arguments on p. 3 of HiMon). in b\ vhich the date 1221 is 
arrived at from the “horoscope date ’ 1318 for the birth of Rame.sses II will see that we 
are there dealing with a tissue of mere guesswork, and that such a date a.s the 1221 in 
question is quite devoid of value. Be it noted, too, that a correction of only ten years 
backwards would remove the difficulty. 

We must now turn to a discovery which might reasonably have been expected to 
throw fresh light on this problem even if it did not solve it once for all. In 1903-5 
Schiaparelli conducted an excavation in the Valley of the Tombs^ of the Queen.s at 
Thebes®. Close to the already well-known tomb of Praherwenemef (No. 11) he discovered 


■ Doubtless omitted by Ramesses t I in hi.s own c.isc pioeiseh bi 
limits of a single eolnmn. 

2 L. D., 206 d, 212 a, 21.3 o ; Pap. Harris, 7.3. 6 lb 
2 ScHl,\P.\RELLl, Rela:ioi>e mi hicun tlell" R'd. 

primo, Esplorazione della “ Vulle delle Ree/ine, 11-Jtt. 

Journ. of Egy’pt. Arch. xiv. 


•uiso they would ha\r overpassed the 


in E'lif.t'i .'inni 1003-1020), volume 


8 



58 


T. ERIC PEET 


the tombs of three more^ of the sons of Eamesses III, namely Setherkhepeshef, Amen- 
herkhepeshef and Khaemwese. That these four princes are actually sons of Eamesses III 
is placed beyond doubt by the extravagantly prominent part which that king plays in 
the scenes of their tombs, taken in conjunction with the titles borne by the princes. 
Setherkhepeshef is si niswt smsm mr-f, “eldest son of the king, beloved by him,” and si 
smsm n ht-f, “eldest son of his loins”: he bears the further title Mn n pi ih, “groom of 
the stable." We do not know the exact relation which the title si nimvt smsm bears to 
that of Si nisivt tpi n hni-f borne by Praherwenernef. It is possible that the latter was 
originally the eldest son and that after his early death Setherkhepeshef succeeded to 
the position. In the tomb of Setherkhepeshef, Schiaparelli found no sarcophagus and 
no proof that the prince had ever been buried there. He therefore suggests that he 
may have reigned as king and consequently been buried in a tomb in the Valley of the 
Kings. 

The tomb of Khaemwese is similar in style to the last. The lid of a sarcophagus was 
found in it. The prince bears the titles “sm-priest of Ptah,” as on the Medinat Habu 
list, and si niswt n ht-f mr-f , “king’s son of his loins, his beloved,” si smsm, “eldest 
son.” 

The tomb of Amenherkhepeshef is stated in an inscription to have been “given by 
favour of King Eamesses III to the great royal children,” which suggests that more than 
one of them was intended to be buried there. Perhaps Eamesses was by this time 
becoming tired of the expense of providing a separate burial-place for each of his 
numerous progeny. The prince bears the titles rpcti hri tp tiwl, “crown-prince at the 
head of the Two Lands,’’ si niswt n ht-f mri-f, “king’s son of his loins, his beloved” and 
“born of the god’s wife, royal mother and great royal wife.” The queen’s name is 
unfortunately not given, but she must clearly have been a recognized wife of Eamesses III, 
probably Isis. The prince bears the further titles “great chief, overseer of horses of his 
majesty in the department of chariotry of Eamesses III." The tomb contained a granite 
sarcophagus, but Schiaparelli is not prepared to say whether the prince had ever been 
buried there. 

How do these discoveries bear on the question of the Medinat Habu list ? At first 
sight they would appear to accord better with Petrie’s theory that all the princes in the 
list are sons of Eamesses III. Here, it might be said, is clear proof that Eamesses III 
actually had sons whose names were Amenherkhepeshef, Setherkhepeshef and Khaemwese, 
three of the names in the list. What is more, even the titles seem to correspond, for 
Amenherkhepeshef is called “overseer of horses” in both cases, Setherkhepe.shef, described 
as “overseer of horses” at Medinat Habu, is “groom of the stable” in the tomb and 
finally Khaemwese is called “sewi-priest of Ptah” in both places. 

The new evidence thus appears to carry a balance of favour on the side of Petrie’s 
hypothesis. But this quickly disappears on further examination. In the first place it is 
by no means impossible in the nature of things that both Eamesses III and Eamesses VI 


' LEFfniURK, Zdt^'-hr. / </y. Spr., 1,S8.‘., xxiii, 1:27, foU'.woJ npp.u'eiitly by (tvciHlER, Z/cv dea rois. 
tome nr, fasc. i, 170, note 3, takes Tomb No. 11 to be that of the luother of Praherwenernef. p’or the 
evideiRO on whieli this i- b.t.sed, see Coi.iN C.tMi'BEi.r, Tim Tlirhi,, 2-3, and Schi vrARl-.LLi 

Eaphirazii.M dd'a “ VnHe ddh R-gi,,,-;’ 121-2, foot-note. It hardl.v .soenis to justity the conclusions drawn 
from it. 

Pin-KIK, IliMorn, III, 134 and 14.-.. .suggests that the tomb i.s tli.it of Ti .Mcreneso, wife of Setnakht and 
iiiDther of III. Thi.-* a piiiv ijues.v 

4\ Eio.tLL, lUnd- I,, //„? Artignitka III Z/Yj.-r 2."-.s numbers this tomb 42. 



OHKONOL( )G1CAL PKUBLEMS UF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 5'.) 


had sons bearing these names. In the second place, the uaine.s of the sons of Ramesse.s III 
whose tombs have been found show that in the naming of the royal family conscious 
imitation of the family of Ramesses II was at work. This imitation extended even to 
titles, and we need not doubt that Rames.ses III gave to Khaemwese the title ■' .'>en/-priest 
of Ptah” because Khaemwese son of Ramesse.^ II had borne the same title. When once 
this principle is perceived, the similarity of name-, and titles between the occupants of 
Schiaparelli’s tombs and the princes of the Medinat Ilabu list loses all value, for, if 
Ramesses YI had sons, it is natural that he should have conformed to the family 
tradition both in the matter of names and of titles. 

We may perhaps go further than this. Would there not be a .-erious danger from 
Petrie’s point of view in claiming the owners of the new tombs as sous of Rame.-ses III 
If they were buried here^ as youths (for as such the wall-scenes represent them), how can 
two of them have ruled, in middle life, a.s Ramesse.s IX and X respectively, as Petrie 
would have us believe? To this it might be replied that they were never buried in these 
tombs, and that in fact Schiaparelli found no certain proof of burial in any of the three, 
for a broken sarcophagus proves nothing. YAt, though it is a well-known fact that the 
Egyptian believed in being ready for death and in beginning his tomb in good time, 
nowhere have we evidence that he carried foresight to such jiessimistic lengths as to 
cover the walls of his tomb with representations of himself still wearing the side-lock 
of youth. That the princes died young .seems therefore highly probable. 

It is perhaps, however, wiser not to press this point, and to conclude that the 
discovery in the Y'alley of the Queens leaves the Medinat Habu question much as 
it found it. 


Returning now, after this long but necessary digression, to Ramesse.s V, we find that 
the evidence for placing him after Ramesses IV is as follows. He must have immediately 
preceded Ramesses VI, who usurped his tomb. But Ramesses H must also have been 
earlier than Ramesses VI, who has more than once erased his name on monuments and 
substituted his own. Ramesses IV, however, we have already seen was the immediate 
successor of Ramesses III. There remains nothing therefore <ave to place Rame,s.-3e.s \ 
between IV and VI. If any other king came in between IV and V, no trace of him has 
survived. 

The length of this king'.s reign is unknown. The highe.'t year as yet f(nind is Year I, 
which occurs in a Turin pajjvrus concerning a priest of Elephantine, already referred to 
(p. 53), P.-R., liv, 1. II, and also on an ostracon at Turin’. 


Ramesses VI 

Nebmarec-Miamun, Ramesses-Amenherkhepeshef-Xeterhekon 

The position of this king in the list we have already di-^cm-^ed. Xo date in his reign 
IS known, though, judging bv the number of monuments ivhich he has left, he must have 
been very far from insignificant or ephemeral. 


' (JoLix 7'"'< t^. iii.r jii'Tilii'il m .i''Uiimm tli.it tlip iii.,('rtii)n of the 

epithet m;( hru- after the u.une of .i prince in tlie .Mcliii.t Hahn li.M prove-, limi to hnvr liooi, ile.id. 

^ lI.tspERo, Rec. de tnfc.. il. 117 - 


b — -2 



60 


T. ERIC PEET 


Ramesses VII 

UsimareC-JIiamun-Setpenref', Ramesses-Itamun-Neterhekon 

A few years ago I wrote in this Journal (xi, 72 ff.) some account of an unpublished 
Turin papyrus which made it probable that this king was the immediate successor of 
Xebmaref Eamesses VI and that he reigned at least six years. A re-examination of 
this papyrus in 1927 enables me to advance what was there regarded a possibility 
or a probability to what is almost a certainty. In the middle of recto 3. 4 is mounted 
a misplaced and reversed fragment. This fragment I now observe can be fitted with 
absolute certainty at the end of verso 1.7. On the recto side this now gives us three 
more signs at the end of 3. 14 (p. 73 of the article) and they are . This very 
fortunately puts the sense of the four lines 3. 12-15 beyond all doubt, and they are to 
be read as follows: "Total given to him [in goods] of every kind, 1210 deben of copper. 
[Givjeu to him [from] Year x, month y of the... season day 1 of King Nebmarec 
Mi[amun, the Great God, up to Year 6 (?)]... of King Usimarec tSetpenrec Mi(amun>, 
our lord, amounting to. ..years Complete total, 1364 deben of copper.” 

No one who has any experience of account papyri will dispute that here a total is 
being given covering a certain number of years in the reign of Kebmarec and a certain 
number in that of Usimarec In the portion of the papyrus which precedes this 
summing up we have dates in Years 4, 5 and 6 of a king not actually named. Thus 
the summing up was made in or just after Year 6 of Ramesses Usimarec (VII) and 
covered the whole of his reign up to that date as well as the last year or years of his 
predecessor Kebmarec. The detail of the years of Nebmarec and Years 1 to 3 of his 
successor has disappeared in the missing first page or pages of the recto. 

On p. 74 of the article I have discussed the evidence of the verso of this papyrus, 
dated in Year 7, and suggested the 2 JOssibility that this year also belongs to Ramesses VII. 
It would be unwise to press this jjoint, and we may be content with the evidence of the 
recto, which makes it almost a matter of certainty that Usimarec was the successor of 
Kebmarec and reigued at least six years. 

Monuments of this king are so rare that it is worth while to mention a possible one 
which has escaped notice. The Turin papyrus numbered PI. Ixxii by Pleyte-Rossi is 
part of the verso of (and therefore later than) the tomb-plan of Ramesses IV. It consists 
of two texts numbered i and ii by Pleyte-Rossi, quite possibly by the same hand, and 
both forming part of the Xecropolis Diary. Page i, 11. 2-8 contain a list of clothes 
given in Year 7 to the citizeness Taurtemheb as her share in a division of the clothes 
of the scribe Ameunakht between his children and her. Possibly she was his wife. The 
division was made by the scribe Hori of the necropolis. Lines 9-11 record other 
matters. In page ii, line 3 we meet a date in Year 1. This page must be later than 
page i, lying as it does on the left of it. In lines .5-6 we read: ‘•'Twenty-first day of 
the. ..month of. ..the workmen went up. ..King Itfamun.” The king’s name is slightly 
obsciued by a fold in the papyrus, but Oerny and myself, when we collated the papyrus 
in 1926, agreed that it was certain. Kow Itfamun (Itamun) is Ramesses VII, and since 
he is neither referred to as Pharaoh nor given the epithet pii-n nb, “Our Lord,” he is 
dead. The phrase to "go up” tsi in the Xecropolis Diary is used almost invariably 
of going up to the tombs, and consequently it is probably the tomb of Ramesses VII 
which is here referred to. That it is referred to at all makes it probable that work was 

' It is of course just possible that the .short reign of a king intervening between the two i.s included. 



CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS <)E THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY G1 


still in progress there, and therefore that the Year 1 is that of Rainesses VIII. Unless 
we suppose a large gap between pages i and ii of the papyrus which of course is 
possible, though not, in view of the homogeneity of content, very probable. Year 7 of 
page i will be that of Ramesses YII and we should have the implication that he reigned 
seven years 


Ramesses VIII 

Usiiiiarei' - Akheiianiun , Ramesses-Setherkhcpe.shef-.Mia m a n 

The existence of this king is vouched for only by the cartouche,-, of figure No. 1 in 
the Medinat Habu List of Princes and by three scarabs. The list indicates no more 
than that he is later than Xos. 2-3. Rames.ses ^T. There is of course nothing to jirovc 
that he was his immediate successor, and his place in the dynasty must still be regarded 
as uncertain. No dates of his reign are known. 

At this point we are met by a very definite break in the evidence. We do not know 
who succeeded Ramesses VIII, and we are therefore compelled to work backwards from 
the end of the dynasty. Four epochs are with certainty to be jilaced towards its end. 
namely the reigns of Ramesses IX (Xefcrkere''). Ramesses X (Khepermarei") and 
Ramesses XI (Menmare''), together with the 2 'C‘riod known a^ the v-lun "Renewal 

of Births,” or, more conveniently. " Eenais.sance." We luu.st now attempt to fletermine 
the lengths of these four periods and the order of their succession. 

Ramesses IX 

Neferkerei'-Setpeiirec, Ramesse.s-.Miamun-Khaeniwe,-,e 

This reign is commonly stated to have lasted 10 year.-,. The evidence given for the 
statement is threefold: 

(a) The dockets on the verso of Pa 2 >. Abbott. These consist of two lists of thieves 
each dated in "Year 1 corresponding to {IjJt) Year lt». The Year 10 is generally 
assigned to Neferkerec and the Year 1 to the ivh)ii htxivt. which is .sujuiosed to have 
immediately followed his reign. 

(b) Maspero long ago drew attention to a pa}»yrus of tishermenV accounts at Turin- 
(Cat. 2075) in which dates in Year 10 of an unnamed king are immediately followed by 
dates in Year 1: he attributed the Year 10 to Xeferkerec and the Year 1 to the reign 
of Khepermarec, which he held to be identical with the ir/on 

(c) In this number of the Journal, Dr. Botti refers to a Turin iwiiyrus (Cat. 
1932 + 1939) bearing two separate texts on the recto and one on the verso. Of the two 
on the recto that nearest the right-hand edge of the jiajiyrus is dated in Tear 2 of 
Khepermarec, and the other in Year 19 of a king unnamed. This king Dr. Botti would 

^ Maspero {Les laoniie-i ro>i<jles, 00 '>, iH^te :t, -ittiil'Utes ifie \e.ir 1 <*f iln, [tapyru, 0* Meinn.trC-r un the 
ground that thp preceding Year 7 is that of KlieperiiiarC-C "liis prodece-'iir Ib; rctuitrks that hi, roa.sons 
are “too long to lae .stated liere." He i, certainly wo.ng. The entry of Year 7 i, attrihutod hy Krjiax, 
Zwei Aktenstucke der thehaniichcn <J rubvi-studt, dll’, to lI,imes,.os l\, hut without, so far as 1 can ,see, any 
reason. Spiegelberg, who publishetl it in his ,S 7 e^/?e,/ >ti,d A[uteri*iltctt, n“-4. does not attempt to date it. 
The scribe Amennakht may be traced back to I ear of Uauiesscs III, when he appears in the two 
documents published by Ernian, < 7 /. cit. 

^ Mvniies royides, 058. 


<>j ,. , It., lino. 



6:3 


T. EEIC FEET 


idciitif}- with K'eferkerei". He is inclined to believe that the whm mswl is identical with 
the reign of Khepermarec, though he would not exclude the possibility that it followed 
his reign. 

,Xow what does this evidence amount to? Document (a) in itself proves very little. 
The dockets are obviously later than the recto of Abbott, i.e., than Neferkeref’s 17th 
year. Consequently their "Year 19'’ might conceivably belong to his reign. On the 
other hand it might belong to a still later reign, and there is nothing to set against this 
except the current belief that an added text on a papyrus is never much later in date 
than the original text, a belief which, even if jastified, is very indefinite. The dockets 
therefore do not prove that Xeferkerer reigned 19 years. 

Document {h), the fishermen’s accounts, brought up as corroborative evidence for the 
attribution of the Year 19 of Abbott to Xeferkerec, is a double-edged weapon, for in it 
we find that Year 19 instead of "corresponding to’’ Year 1 is succeeded by Year 1. 
X^one of the historians who have used this piece of evidence appears to have noticed 
this very important point. It might not unreasonably be adduced as evidence to show 
that the Year 19 mentioned in the two documents cannot be one and the same. Yet we 
shall not insist on this, for there is just the possibility that the two apparently in- 
consistent systems of reckoning may be reconciled in such a way as to allow the Year 19 
to refer to the same king in both cases. 

X'ow Botti has shown that of the six fishermen mentioned as providing the supply 
of fish for the necropolis in this pap}Tus, four are found in the same employ in the 
Diary of Year 17 of Xei’erkerec and all six in the Diary of Year 3 of Khepermarec 
(Pap. Chabas-Lieblein, X'o. 1). The temptation to assign the papyrus to the 19th year 
of Xlcferkerec and to draw the almost inevitable conclusion that it was succeeded by the 
fir.'t year of some other king (possibly Khepermarec) or epoch is very strong. If we 
refuse this we are faced with the necessity of believing that a group of fishermen 
retained their duties over a period of at least nineteen years: that one man should 
have so long a tenure is not impossible. That no fewer than six should do so is highly 
improbable. There is therefore a strong possibility that in this papyrus we should see 
evidence that the reign of XMerkerec lasted 19 years, and that that of Khepermarec 
followed it at a not very long interval. 

With the conclusions drawn by Dr. Botti from Document (c) I find myself in 
considerable disagreement. Here we have a papyrus on the recto of which are two 
texts. That on the right, i.e., nearest to the point where a scribe would begin to write, 
is dated in Year 2 of Khepermarec : it is written in a fine large upright hand. That on 
the left of it is dated in Year 19 of an unnamed king, and is an account of grain 
received for the staff of the necropolis. When on the same side of a papyrus we find 
two pages written the same way np and adjacent the one to the other it is an almost 
certain inference that the one on the right is the earlier, for a scribe began on the right, 
and never, except for special reasons, left a large blank space at that end of his sheet. 
A jjriori, then, one would expect the page dated l’’ear 19 to be later than, not earlier 
than, that dated in Year 2 of Khepermarec. This judgment seems to me to be in no 
way invalidated by the ^•erso. Here we find another clocument, a list of the workmen 
of the necropolis, dated in a year which is lost, of the reign of Khepermarec. This text 
IS not in my opinion in the same hand as that of Khepermarec on the recto, but in one 
which resembles it closely. Thus the papyrus as a whole has every appearance of having 
been originally written during the reign of Khepermarec and of having had a short text 
added to it on the unused portion of the recto in the 19th year of a later king. At any 



CHEONOLOGICAL PEOBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY r.3 


rate the burden of proof lies with those who wish to assiirn the earlier date to the text 
of Year 19. I am unable to accept Botti's defence of this view. lie siieeests either that 
anew piece of papyrus had been glued over just as imieli of tlie doeunuuit of Yi-ar 19 of 
Neferkerec on the recto as was needed to insert a title-docket' (for such he conceives the 
text of Year 2 to be) to the Khepermarec document on the verso, or that that part of 
the text of earlier date which originally covered this space was erased, the rest, on it'- 
left. being spared since the space was not needial. The (irst ex])lanation seems unlikelv 
partly because there is no evidence of this kind of wholesale patching of papvnis bv the 
scribes and partly because I can see no trace of three laviTs of papyrus at this jioint : 
the second I cannot accept because the papyrus does not show any sign of being 
palimpsest. 

There is unfortunately no prosopographical evidence to heljt us. In the' text of 
Year 19 no persons are mentioned save a scribe whose name either was, or at least 
began with, Mery. We have therefore no sufficient evidence for assigning this text to 
the reign of Neferkerec and certain rea.sons for thinking that it may well be later, 
perhaps from the reign of Menmarec'^. 

The list of workmen on the verso is of imjiortance for our puipose. for it contains 
several names which occur both in the list of the I)iarv of Year 17 of Xeferkerec and 
also in an irnpublished Diary of Year 16. which various indications seem to show should 
be attributed to the same reign. This makes it difiicult to .separate the reign of 
Khepermarec by any very great distance from the la.st years of that of XeferkereC. 

Of the three documents (n). (h) and {<:■). then, none is quite decisive in giving to 
Xeferkerec a reign of 19 years, though one. (h). j)oints very strongly in that direction. 
If we except this group of texts the highe.st date which can be with certainty attributed 
to him is Year 17. the date of the B.M. papyri lOOo:} recto ( ■■ Harris A), looijs recto 
(see Journal, xi. 162-3) and of the Xecropolis Diary at Turin, where the king's name 
does not actually occur but may bo deduced with certainty from the fact that the theft 
dealt with by Harris A is there referred to. Papyrus B.M. lOd.ll giv('s a rlate in 
Year 18 (recto 3. 7) which is in all probability referable to Xeferkerec. })ut ]iroof is 
impossible. Consecjnently the AYar 17 tuust stand as the niaximuiu. 


Ramesses X 

Khepermarec-Setpenrec. Bamesses-Amenlieikliepcshef 

Only one dated document exists for thi' leign. flic otliers attributed to this king 
by the hi.storians, e.g.. Petrie and Gauthier, are all actually dated in the irhni ni'ort and 
must for the present at least be excluded. The only certain .locument is the Papyrus 
Ohabas-Lieblein Xo. 1. which has been shown to be dated to the third year of Khejrer- 
marec3, and ATear 3 i.s thus the highest date yet known to us from the reign. Thi.s same 


* The text eii the recto tn my mind imt ,i mer'- "tule ’ or ntle-do, ket to tljo text on tlio \rmo 
but a comj)lete text iu it.self. There remain oulv the il.ate, title.-. ,uid 11,11110-. ot the kimr. and the n.ime ot 
the necropolis. The rest is lo.st. 

- Dr. Botti sees an objection to this m the^cri}'t. which for him m ot the type .e-^oeiated with tiie reiun 
of XeferkerC'C. I have never been in full .e.;reemetit witli liim m hi- belief that definite tendeneie- cm be 
traceil in the hieratic si ript .us it -ip[u’o.tehe- the end ot the d\ii.i-t\. To m\ mnni .-o much de[tends on 
the idiosyncrasies of p.irticular scribes th.it over -o -liert a ]ieriod .1-. -,y\. tlnrtv y.u's no moienient in 
a definite direction can be traced. 

^ See Borri-PEET, // O'/'o/'/ed" .Vi , ih T' Tk', f.i-e. 



64 


T. EEIC PEET 


papyrus is the only valuable piece of evidence which we have for fixing the position of 
this king. In 3. 17 there is a reference to King Neferkerec. The vizier had apparently 
asked the necropolis for men to be used in transporting certain clothes of King Nefer- 
kerec. The request is refused, the workmen being at the time in a rebellious mood, and 
a workman replies ''Let the vizier (himself?) carry the clothing of Kin g Neferkerec and 
the cedar wood." We may safely infer from this that Khepermarei" is to be placed later 
than Xeferkcreci, though the absence of the title ‘" The Great God,” usual in speaking of 
a dead king, after Neferkerec’s name is striking, and suggests that he may have been still 
alive, KhepermareC being a usurper. The fact that of the ten fishermen mentioned in 
this pap^Tus as supplpng fish to the necropolis no fewer than six were doing the same 
thing in Year 17 of Neferkerec indicates a proximity between this third year of 
KhepermareC and the end of Keferkerec’s reign, and this is supported by the fact that 
we still find Khaemwese as vizier and Pewero as prince of the West of Thebes. The 
other persons mentioned in this papyrus and also known to us from other sources 
are the vizier's scribe Amenkhau, who reappears in the Turin papyrus dated in Years 4 
and 5 of the wiim msui, and Khaemhezet scribe of the necropolis, who appears, though 
without the addition of the words ‘'of the necropolis,” in a piece of the Necropolis 
Diary dated in the Year 16 -, and probably attributable, as the combination of the 
\dzier Khaemwese. the chief workman Woserkhepesh and the scribe of the necropolis 
Horisheri shows, to the reign of Neferkerec. 

Ramesses XI 

Menmarec-Setpeuptah, Ramesses-Khaemwese-Miamun-Neterhekon 

The position of this king has always been regarded as certain since Maspero pointed 
out® how in the temple of Khonsu at Karnak, partly built during his reign, the position 
and titles of the king were gradually usurped by the chief priest of Amiln, Herihor. 
The natural interpretation of this evidence is that Herihor was the immediate successor 
of Ramesses Menmarec, and there is no other evidence which makes such an interpreta- 
tion impossible or improbable. That Menmarec was later than Neferkerec seems clear 
from the Papyrus of Wenamun, which Erman^ is surely right in dating to the fifth year 
not of Herihor but of Menmarec. In this pap\Tus the prince of Byblos reminds Wenamun 

1 Maspero had already ob.sorved (Ze.f 7>io/„i»s royn/vs, 6.59-60; that Pap. Chabas-Lieblein showed the 
priority of NeferkerC-C (mentioned recto 3. 17) to Khei)eni'.arOC, whose name stands on the verso. It is 
worth while to observe that in the pas.s,age given by him from Champollion, the latter has quoted as 
occurring under the date Paoni -li in Chab.-Liebl. a passage coming from a totally different papyrus 
namely Pleyte- Rossi .x.xxiv. No wonder Maspero was puzzled and thought that Champollion must have 
had access to fragments of Chab.-Liebl. .since lost 1 Where Champollion found the receipt bearing a date 
in the reign of Ramesses lY HekmareC-Setpenaniun which he transplants to the verso of Chab.-Liebl. 
I cannot imagine. There are further confusions in his account. The king, a scribe of whose temple is 
mentioned under Pharmutlu 2."), is Rame.sses III L’simareC-Miamun (Chab.-Liebl. 2. 8) not Ramesses IV- 
the king whose name occui-s in 6. 7 under the date Me.sore 14 is Ramesses II (not Ramesses III as stated 
in a parenthesis by Maspero', and the king referred to in 2. 26 on the 26th Pachon is the .same Ramesses II 
and not “ son fils et succes.seur.” 

2 Pap. Turin, P.-R. xc, line 8. This jiapyrus is iu reality part of P.-R. Ixxxiii, line 1 of Col. ii of .xe 
following directly upon line 4 of Col. ii of Ixxxiii .\. A .scribe Khaemhezet also occurs in P.-R. x line 10 • 
the papyrus is dated in Year 7, but of wh.at king is uncertain. 

ZeiUi'hr. f. ii;j. Sp,-., 1883, 75-7. This episode is admirably treated by Breasted, Ancie 7 tt Record<i 

608-26. 

* Zeitschr. f. aff. Spr., xxxviii. 2. 



CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY (i5 


of the fate of the envoys who came from Egypt to his city in th<> time of Khaemwcsei. 
by whom must surely be meant Neferkerei". and remained tlier** 17 years-. That 
MenmareC is later than Khepermarec is also clear from the fact that a note dateci in his 
reign is found on the verso of Papyrus C’habas-Lieblcin®. 

The position of Menmarec at the end ot the dyna.sty may thus be accepted as 
almost certain. Several dates from his reign are known. The cotlins of Ramesses II and 
Seti I^ both bear hieratic inscriptions dated in Year fi, and as Ilerihor still appeals in 
these as High Priest, and not yet as king, we may saftdy attribute tliem to MenmareC. 

Turin possesses dated papvri of Years 12 and 17. The former rif tliese is that given 
by Pleyte-Eossi in PI. Ixv, c. When collating this in 1923 I was .siir])rised to find that 
it forms part of the long account papyrus. P.-E. .xcvi, xcvii. e. ei. civ. elvi ami elvii. 
lying to the right of Plate c with a very short gap. Tlie main liistorieal iitterest nf the 
papyrus is that it shows us the veteran prince nf the \\ c.st Pewcio still living in 
Menmaret’s twelfth vear. in the company of younger officials such as thi' scribe of the 
necropolis Dhoutmose. The papyrus dated in Tear 17 is a fine hut incomplete letter. 
Pleyte-Eossi, Ixvi-lxvii, written from the king to Panehsi the aiiny commander and 
“Royal Son of Kush.” and mentioning the butler Tenes. 

The only other date known from this reign is Tear 27. on the stela of a scribe called 
Hori from Abydos, and this is therefore the minimum length for the reign. 


The Renaissance {>rhin iiisirt) 

The indications so far observed point to the fact that Neferkorec reigned certainlv 
17 years and possibly 19, that Khepermarec was a successor of his, jxissibly i hough not 
necessarily immediate, and that Tleiimaret was later than both. 

The next step in our argument must be to e.xamine the period known as the 
msict or Repeating of Births. The dates known from this perii.id are as follow,' : 

(1) Year 1. Pap. Mayer A, 1. 1. 

(2) Year 2. Pap. Mayer A. 8. 1, 11. 1: Pap. B.M. 10i(»3 ’. 1. I. 

(3) Years 4 and -5. Mentioned in an unpublished papyrus in Turin (Cat. i'.hi;} 18(»). 
This is a record of rations of various kinds i.^sued to the necropolis. Ihe officials 


1 If the vizier of this name is meant, which is improtul.le. the time im[>’.ic umu' .re mu. ii ti.e '.o.se 

- It i.s clear from tliis that nmre tlian .si'voiiteeii yc.u-' h.ive elip'ed 'ince tla-e me'seneeiv were 'e,,t, 
for Wenaniun saw their tomh : in otlier worts they wore 'Ciit more tl.aii twelve ve.u-' l.efmv the ,ieee"ieii 
of Menrnarci'. Unfortunately this f.ut is not of the least U'C to U' ii' we .h. n..r know m what \eir of 
NeferkereC they were .sent. 

- See Boiii-Peei, II (jiomdlv dtU." Itecrupoh di 777,., fasc 

^ Maspero, Leg momie^ royuhs, .103-0.3 and Pis. .v-xvi. It needs only cUme .it Iffi, x i, .,nd .xii to 
see that on the latter the hieratic insciffiition has heen doctored, d.mhth" to en'iire ele.ner repiodm timi. 
Thus the group which appo.ars on .xii at the end .Tline 1 i' imorn-ct. no vrtii.d stroke .ipi.e ,ni,c in 

-XB. Consequently the word ^7;^ ■■vizier^ proh.ddy stood at the heginninu of the lorn,.,, perhaps 
followed by the vizier’s name. We must therefore not ro.id witli llKKXsrEn, An.-d-.t A'- - the 
vizier, the Hiffii Prie.st...Herihor,” siving the impression th.at Herihor lieM tlie offiee of vi/icr. but r.ither 
“the vizier [X. and] the hich priest Herihor.'’ It is unfortun.ite that in tlie ni'cription on tie- eoftin of 
Eamesses II there is a lacuna at precisely the s.ime spot. Masckro. .y,. c,t., .->.-.7, tig. l-u shows ,,t it' 
beginning “The chief of...,” but it i.s difficult to see Imw this title is to 1 m- completed s,,tis);„ tonly, 

and it would be well if the coffin were examined ag.iin w.tli ,i view tn testing Ma.spero's reading an.l 
deciphering, if i)o,s.sible, the rest of tlie phrase. 

“ Also probably, to .judge by the official personnel. Pap. B.M. I0.3's3, d.ited Ve.ir 2. without king-name. 

.Tourn. of Egypt. Arch. xtv. 



66 


T. ERIC PEET 


mentioned are the overseer of the treasury Wenennefer, the deputy of the treasury Hori 
and the vizier’s scribe Amenkhau. 

(4) Year 6. Ambras Papyrus, Vienna. 

The ivhm mswt then lasted at least six years and was in ordinary use for dating 
purposes. Most of the historians have avoided the problem by quietly assigning all the 
dated documents of this period to corresponding years in the reign of Khepermarer, 
giving as a justification for this the testimony of the Abbott dockets. We have already 
seen that this is pure assumption. What then are the possibilities with regard to this 
period? They are as follows: 

(1) The u'hm niswt was part of Xeferkerer’s reign. 

(2) It followed this immediately. 

(3) It is equivalent to the reign of Khepermarer. 

(4) It followed this reign immediately. 

(5) It formed part of the reign of Menmarec. 

Now the astonishing thing about the papyri dated to Years 1 and 2 of this era is 
that their personnel is entirely different from that of those of the later vears of Neferkerer. 
In the trial of Mayer A and B.M. 10052 the officials are: 

The vizier NebmareCnakht. 

Overseer of the treasury and granary Menmarernakht. 

Steward and ro_val butler Yenes. 

Steward and royal butler Pemeriamun, scribe of Pharaoh. 

Of these persons NebmareCnakht was vizier in Year 14 of Neferkerer (Abbott, 4. 15) 
and also in Year 1 corresponding to Year 19 (Abbott dockets, A. 20). He is also found 
along with Menmarernakht and Yenes in Pap. B.M. 10383, a document dated in Year 2 
but with no king-name. Menmarernakht occurs also in Pap. Turin, P.-R. Ixi, line 6 
(collated), a papyrus where he is associated with the vizier Wenennefer i.- this vizier is 
dated by a relief at Karnak (Rec. de trav., xiii, 173) to the reign of Menmarer, and, what 
is more, the pap^TUS itself is marked as coming very late in the dynastv by its reference 
to the scribe of the necropolis Dhutmose. Pemeriamun is not known elsewhere, but 
Yenes reappears in a letter of Year 17 of Menmarer in connexion with the famous 
viceroy of Nubia Pnehe.si (Pap. Turin, P.-R. Ixvii. 15). 

The connexions of the official personnel of the whm msivt seem thus rather to look 
forward towards the reign of Menmarer. It has nothing in common with that of the 
robbery papyri of the Years 16 and 17 of Neferkerer, the chief figures of which are 
the vizier Khaemwese, the high priest of Aniun Amenhotpe, the prince Pewero the 
butlers Nesamun and Neferreremperamun, and the prince Pesiur. And yet there are 
puzzles here. Nebmarernakht was \'izier in Year 14 of Neferkerer (Abb. 4. 15), but 
Khaemwese was vizier in Years 16 and 17. Again Nebmarernakht was vizier in 
“Year 1 corresponding to Year 19,” and also in Years 1 and 2 of the whm mswt. 
A witness in the trial of Pap. B.M. 10052 (8. 19; date whm mswt Year 1) states that 
he remembers the putting to death of certain tomb-thieves “in the time of the vizier 
Khaemwese.” Yet in Pap. Chabas-Lieblein No. 1. which is dated in Year 3 of Kheper- 
marer, Khaemwese is vizier and Pewero Is prince of the West of Thebes ! 

It is possible that we may get some light in the darkness if we can determine the 
nature of the period known as lohm mswt. It must have been a remarkable event which 


> G.VUTHIEK, iPvv Jes ,-ow, III, i, 209, wmiig in assigning this papyrus to the reign of Neferkerer. 
I had made the same niishike myself and was corrected bv Cenn'. 



CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY G7 


could induce the conservatively-minded Egyptians to abandon the time-honoured custom 
of dating by king-years. In fact it is only with reluctance that we are jirepared to 
admit that such a thing really happened, and we wonder whether some king niav not 
have borne whm mswt ‘'Renewing Births" as one of his names, but of this there is no 
trace. Two earlier kings used it as a name— Amenemmes I of the Twelfth Dynasty, and 
Seti I of the Nmeteenth. Both these kings, as Rardmer ha.s pointed out to me. mav 
well have regarded themselves as founders of dynasties; Amenemmes with considerable 
right, Seti with somewhat less. As used for dating purposes in the Twentieth Dvnasty 
the phrase might be expected to indicate a re-establishment of the normal .state of things 
after a period which had been regarded officially as abnormal. Such abnormality might 
have consisted in nothing more than the temporary holding of the throne bv a usurper: 
if this is the case it has left no other visible trace. It might, on the other hand, refer 
to some event of quite a different type, and two are known to us which seem to call for 
consideration. The first is the “war of the chief priest of Amun Amenhotpe," and the 
second is the invasion of Egypt, or at least the Theban area, by foreigners, of which we 
have such manifest evidence in the Necropolis Diarv. 

Let us consider first the war of the high priest .\menhotpe. It i.'^ referred to in two 
passages, firstly Pap. B.M. 10052, 13. 24, where we have a bare mention of ‘ the war of 
the high priest of Amun,'' and in Pap. ilayer A, 6. 3 tf.. where a witness states that 
a certain event took place between the si.xth and the ninth months' of "the violence 
done to Amenhotpe the high priest of Amun." We do not know the nature of this 
“violence” {iji) but it is not impossible that we are to see in it some kind of attack 
upon the temporal power of the priesthood of Amun. which was at this time increasing 
at an alarming rate^. We cannot even fix the date of the event. The witness is speaking 
in the first year of the wlitti mswt, and the robbery from the portable chest in which he 
is concerned miBt have taken place some years earlier, for two of the other witnesses, 
brought up to be questioned concerning the movement.s of their fathers, suspects who 
have since died, state that they were little boys when the crime was committed. It is 
not easy to know how much time must be allowed for this, the more so as they would 
probably exaggerate their extreme youthfulness at the time in order more completely to 
clear themselves of any suspicion of implication in the thefts. Still a space of four or 
five years is probably the minimum. Thus the wlun mswt cannot mark a restoration 
after the war of the high priest, for the facts ju.st related show that the two events are 
separated by a considerable interval®. 

We have next to consider whether the ii'Ihh inttwt may not mark a restoration aftei' 
a period of foreign invasion. The evidence for such an invasion I have published else- 
where^, and here I need only add two pa.ssages which point in the same direction. 
The first is Pap. B.M. 10383, 2. 5, where an official exculpates himself with regard to 
thefts of copper from the doors of the House of Pharaoh by saying, "I left the House 
of Pharaoh when Paiuhasy came and did violence {th) to my superior oliicer, though 

' See Jovni.ijl, xri, 2r>4-9. 

- See, however, helow, p. (js. 

' Tlie .same witiies.-. refers in 0. 9 to .i clearing up of the ili^turhcil temple after the war was over. In 
my e<litioii I have translated hi> words, hr ',r tii-t,r Sful, .is "when order w.as restored," hnt this would 
require and not sprl. C.in the words nie.tn simply "tVlien all w.is over," literally "When one was 
ready ” ? For spd “ be ready ’’ in the .sense of “finished " the tlerman f-rtitj pro\ ides a good parallel. 

* Journal, XII, 257-8. See also W.vixwmght, .1/'/!. Serr., xxvn. T6fil 

9—2 



68 


T. EEIC PEET 


there was no transgression in him^.’’ The other passage is Pap. Mayer A. i. 5, where an 
accused man says “I fled before the mdw cn when Painhasy made the mdtv fn.” Here 
it is impossible to guess what is meant by mdw fti, but it was clearly an act of hostility. 

Painhasy himself, clearly a protagonist in these events, was doubtless, as his name 
implies, a Nubian^, but there were also Libyans, and specifically Meshwesh, in Egypt at 
this time. To the passages quoted as e\’idence® for this we should perhaps add Pap. 
Mayer A, 8. 14, where a man asked to account for his possession of certain gold and 
silver says, "I got them from the Meshwesh.” The earliest certain date for these 
ajjpearances of Libyans in Egypt is given by the Necropolis Diary of Year 13, certainly 
to be assigned to Neferkerec-Ramesses IX b It is possible that the fragment of the 
Diary for Year 8 referred to among the evidence given in the Journal^ is to be dated 
to the same king, for it mentions the chief workman Nekhemmut, well known in the 
reign of Neferkerec. The latest reference to the intruders occurs in Pap. Chabas- 
Lieblein No. 1, the Necropolis Diary for Year 3 of Khepermarec. It is not at all 
impos.sible that the suppression of Amenhotpe and these foreign invasions are to be 
brought into the same context, for in the passage from Pap. Mayer A already quoted 
the witness states that ‘’the foreigners® came and took possession of the temple” and 
that six months after the beginning of the suppression of Amenhotpe, “Peheti, a 
foreigner seized me and took me to Ipip.” It is at the same time difficult to see 
why the attack of foreigners .should be levelled at the high priest of Amun. 

Since we can trace these foreign interruptions as far down as the third year of 
Khepermarei" we must be prepared to admit, if we regard the ivhm mswt as a restoration 
after the final expulsion of the invaders, that this period must be placed after 
Khepermarec's reign. It is worth noting in passing that, whatever the Renaissance 
was, it was orthodox in the matter of religion, for in the new Turin papyrus 1903/180, 
dated in Years 4 and 5 of the Renaissance, we have a reference to ‘'the vizier and the 
high priest of Amun,” though unfortunately neither is named. 

Thus our evidence for connecting the Renaissance with the foreign invasions is 
extremely incomplete, so incomplete that it would be mere folly to press it. Consequently 
the line of enquiry suggested by the supposed meaning of the phrase whm mswt may be 
taken to have failed us®. 

We are thus thrown back on the prosopographical evidence. I do not propose to 
deal with this here, because it falls far more within the competence of Dr. Cerny, 
whose material on this subject is much more complete than mine, he having studied 


’ Hardly, I think, “when there was still no damaue iu it,” 

ix.. iu the Hon.-'C of Ph.lraoh. 

- Is he perchaiic-e the .same man a.s Eamesses XI’s viceroy of Xuhia * 

Jouraol, xil, 2.57-8. .See also Waixwbight, Ann. Sen-., xxvil, 76 ff. 

^ Botti-Pket, 1! Uioniiilu delta iVeeropoli di Tebe, .9-10. 

■' Assiuniiig Gardiner's traii.slation of /ff as .simply “foreigner” to bo correct, Proc. Soc. Bihl. Arch., 
1015, 117 tr. 

" 1 )r. G.irdiner calls my attention to a difficult passage in the Horemhob Decree which might, if one could 




He 


be sure erf it.s meanimr, throw light on the .sense of whm nisvt. It run.s as follows - il 

translates “ If the iread “my' ') period of exi.stence on earth be enduring .it least . isirt) in the making of 
monuments of the god.s I will repeat births like the moon.” Whatever be the exact ineaiiing of the words, 
the comp.iri.son must be between the frequency with which the king makes monument.s and that with 
which the moon is born ag.iin fat e.ich of hi.s monthly risings;. C.in u-h,a mswt mean .simply “birthday”? 



CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 69 


from this point of view large numbers of ostraca of the j)eriod, both at Cairo and 
elsewhere. It may, however, be worth while to point out very shoitly some of the 
difficulties involved in the use of prosopographical evidence in the present case. 

At certain periods of Egyptian history we can establish the succession of several 
kings from the biographies of great officials tvho recount in due order their careers under 
each of the kings whom they served : but in our material for the late Twentieth 
Dynasty there is nothing of this kind, and we have to fall back on chance references to 
persons or officials in different papyri. Of how little real use these are to us will 
be apparent from the following considerations: 

1. Certain names are extremely common, especially among the workmen of the 
necropolis, for example, Nesamun. Hori and Pakharu. Confusion is therefore very easy, 
the more so as it was customary at the period to name the grandson after the grand- 
father. Thus even the name '‘Hori son of Amenkhau ' occurring in two papyri must 
not be equated without further evidence, for the Hori of the one may well be the 
grandfather of the Hori of the other, and similarly with the Amenkhau. 

2. The almost invariable prefixing of a title to a proper name goes far to mitigate 
this difficulty, but does not entirely remove it. Thus though "the scribe Hori" gives 
a narrower field than simply “Hori" it is still insufficient, for out of every hundred 
Horis, and there probably were a hundred in Thebes, several may have been scribes. 
Only when the title is unique or nearly so, v.fj., "vizier" or "scribe of the necropolis,” 
do we approach certainty. 

Three further considerations apply S2)ecially to the case under consideration. 
They are: 

3. The periods whose order we are trying to determine are very short, the 
Renaissance possibly only six years, and the reign of Khepermarec three years on the 
highest known date. Large numbers of officials may quite naturally have remained in 
office throughout the whole of the two periods, if they were adjacent. Consequently, 
even if we possessed complete lists of the chief Theban c)fficials of the two peiiods. they 
would in all probability prove so similar that nothing could be argued from them as to 
the order of the two. 

4. The few documents which we possess from this epoch are of very different types. 
Whereas some give us the names of several of the high officials of their period, others 
are concerned almost entirely with a totally different stratum of society, and name none 
but cemetery workers or fishermen. Thus the various types of document offer no 
elements of comparison one with another. 

5. A change of government such as was not improbable in these troubled times 
might lead to a complete change of officials at one blow, from the vizier downwards. 
Consequently when we find two papyri in which the main offices are held by completely 
different sets of men we must not argue that they differ considerably in time, for the 
cause ma}' be nothing more than a change in government. 

Such are the difficulties with which it is necessary to reckon in an enquiry of this 
kind. The accompanying table gives a conspectus of some of the material. It is limited 
to the more important officials in two groups of papyri, firstly a set of documents from 
the British Museum (with the exception of Pap. Amherst) dealing with tomb-robberies \ 
and secondly a set of papyri in Turin. It shows very clearly the complete break between 
the main officials of the end of XeferkereCs reign and those of the Renaissance, but what it 
cannot show us is whether this break is due to length of time or to change of government. 

‘ Fill’ .1 de'criptiiiu of thoe p.ipyri, scu Ju'irwil, xi, :57 11., lU--t. 



70 


T. EEIC FEET 


' Kamesnes 
! XI 

Turin, P.-H. lxi+ 

Yr. 18 









X 

X 

i X 






' Ramesses 

X 

Pa}). C'lialias- 
Lieblein No. 1 

Yr. 3 

X 


X 





1 








‘a 

/. 

10383 t 

Yr. 2 



■ 


■ 




X 


X 

X 



X 


ilaver A 
‘ 

Yrs. 1-2 


•y/i 

X 

■ 


■ 




X 


X 



i ^ 

1 

X 

10403 

Yr. 2 



■ 


n 








X 



l(Xl.')2 

Yr. 1 

X 


■ 


■ 






X 1 X 

‘ 



X 


+5 

Abbott docket.s 

Ir. 1 
= Yr. 19 


X 


H 






X 





10068 i's. [). 1 

No date 





■ 




X 








l(X)o4 rw. pp. ^-4 

Yr. 6 


■ 



■ 



X 

X 




X 

X 



10068 i'S. })}). 2-8 

Yr. 12 


■ 

D 

n 

; 

i 

1 

X 

X 




X 

X 



10053 M. 

Yr. 9 






I 

1 

i 







1 

I 


l-H 

» 

c 

•f. 

T. 

C 

-3 

Turin Diary 

Yr. 17 

X 1 

1 


X 


1 

i 










10053 roA 

Yr. 17 

X 

X 

X 

X ! 1 

! 1 


^ 1 




j 



PX)68 ro. 

Yr. 17 

X 

X 





X 









10054 fi. p. 1 + 

Yr. 16 

X 



' X 

; 

' 

X i X 1 1 

i 

1 

1 

I 






Aniher-at I Yr. 10 

X 


■ 

■ 

B 


1 

1 1 


! 





Abbott 

Yr. 16 

D 

D 


H 

fl 

X ! X i 

1 1 



i 

i 





Title 

o 

< 

'= 

r. 

X 

a 

-C 

o 

o 

'S 

p 

butler and .scribe of Pliaraoh 

X 

a 

”§ 

O 

ZJ 


I 

u 

tv-. 

o 

c; 

‘S 

o 

X 

c 

'5 

X 

N 

X 

9 

43 

o 

'43 

S 

c; 

X 

p 

c 

>■ 

-S 

C 

S 

u 

9 

■VJ 

O 

-♦J 

X 

V- 

o 

ID 

D 

'S 


2 

3 

■ji 

O 

X 

o 

-5 

o 

c 

5 

< 

o 

% 

Zi 

X 

r-' 

X 

o 

x 

§ 

o 

vT 

"A 

.g 

£ 

o 

S 

’■*3 

"x 

p 

5 

s 

c 

»p 

H 

S 

•4J 

c 

Ip 

2 

i: 

S 

X 

c 

c 

3 

4h 


Kilig-iiauie not given, but attribution eertain. ^Icntioued, but not as i)oing still in offie(v 






CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 71 


We may now sum up the answers suggested by our enquiry to the questions which 
we originally put to ourselves concerning the position of the Renaissance. 

1. Was it a part of the reign of Yeferkerec ? This po.ssibility cannot be ruled out. 
If the Year 19 of the dockets of Pap. Abbott is really that of Yeferkerec, and the 
Year 1 to which it corresponds is that of the Renaissance, then it seems clear that the 
Renaissance either was a name for the last years of Xeferkerer, from Year 19 onward, 
or immediately followed his reign, which in this case ended in Year 19. With regard to 
the two a.ssumptions made here, it may be said that the assignment of Year 1 of the 
dockets to the Renaissance is very reasonable in view of the fact that the thieves men- 
tioned in them do actually come up for trial in Year 1 of that epoch (Pap. B.M. lOO.b'Z 
and Mayer A), and it is hardly likely that a con.siderable time should have elapsed, as 
for example the reign of Khepermarer with its minimum of three years, between the 
denouncement and the trial. With regard to the a.ssignment of Year 19 to Xeferkerer. 
the situation must be faced that if it is not assigned to him it can only belong to 
Menmarer, and the whole of the Renaissance would thus be transplanted into his reign. 
This possibility will be considered under 5. 

2. Was the Renaissance a separate period immediately following the reign of 
Xeferkerer? This has practically been dealt with above. It is just possibly the correct 
solution. Those, however, who hold this view and attribute the Year 1 of the fi.shermen’s 
account papyrus to the Renaissance will have to explain why this Year 1. which here 
appears to follow Year 19, is represented in the Abbott dockets as “ corresponding 
to” it. 

3. Is the Renaissance identical with the reign of Khepermarer? This is the one 
supposition which can be ruled out with comparative confidence The title docket on 
the verso of Pap. Chabas-Lieblein Xo. 1 shows that during the reign of Khepermarer 
the years were numbered in the normal manner ; that two different dating systems 
should be in existence side by side for no less than six' years in the same part of Egypt 
is unthinkable. 

4. Did the Renaissance immediately follow the reign of Khepermarer? If we accept 
the Year 19 of the Abbott dockets as that of Xeferkerer, the an.swer to this question 
must be no, unless we are prepared to deny that the Year 1 which there corresponds to 
it is that of the Renaissance. It is just possible to do this on present evidence or rather 
lack of evidence, and to suppose that this Year 1 is that of Khepermarer, and that the 
thieves mentioned in the dockets remained untried throughout the three or more years 
of Khepermarer’s reign, to be brought to book in the first year of the Renaissance which 
immediately followed this. Yet this cannot be regarded as very probable, as we saw 
above. It would be for the advocates of such a theory to explain why Year 19 of 
Xeferkerer .should be said to "correspond to” Year 1 of his successor Khepermarer. 

5. Was the Renaissance part of the reign of Menmarer? This is a highly attractive 
possibility. If the Year 19 of the Abbott dockets does not refer to Xeferkerer it must 
refer to a later king, and since we may with great probability rule out Khepermarer, 
whose highest known date was three years, we should have good reason for attributing 
it to Menmarer. Such a theory is, however, not without its difficulties. Xebmarernakht 
was vizier in Year 14 of Xeferkerer (Pap. Abbott, 4. 15) and here again he is found as 
vizier in Year 19 of Menmarer, at least twenty-five years later. This is of course not 
impossible, the more so as he was presumably named after, and hence born under, 
Xebmarer Ramesses VI, and was consequently quite young when he became vizier in the 

’ Year G Geing the higlie.st known Renaissanee (kite 



72 


T. EEIC PEET 


reign of Neferkerei'. A much more serious difficulty lies in the fact that according to 
Pap. Turin Pleyte-Rossi, Ixi (collated, together with considerable unpublished portions), 
a certain Wenennefer was vizier in Year 18 of Menmarer. It is true that the papyrus does 
not name the king, but we know from the reliefs of the temple of Amenophis III at Karnak^- 
that this vizier served under Menmaref, and we cannot put him back into Year 18 of 
Yeferkerer, even if there ever was such a year, without supposing a change of vizier 
between that year and the previous year when Khaemwese held the office (Pap. B.M. 
10053, ro., 1 . 5). Another very strong reason for placing Wenennefer in the reign of Menmarei" 
is his association in the papyrus referred to with the scribe of the necropolis Dhutmose. 
This man is dated to the very end of the dynasty by the letters published in Spiegel- 
berg’s Correspondances des rois-pretres and others (unpublished at Turin) of the same 
series. Moreover he is frequently mentioned in Pap. Turin, P.-R. xcffi-xcvii, c-ci, clv- 
clvii, of which Ixv c, which bears the date Year 12 of Menmaref, is actually a part 
(see above, p. 65). It is therefore difficult to avoid the implication that Wenennefer was 
vizier in Year 18 of Memnaref, and unless we suppose a change in that year or the next, 
which would be a remarkable coincidence, Nebmarernakht cannot have been vizier in 
Year 19. Coincidences, however, do occur, and one may have occurred here. The trial 
recorded in Mayer A, B.M. 10052 and 10403 certainly took place some time after the 
crime, for we have already seen that some of the criminals were dead and that their sons, 
brought up to bear witness in their place, claim to remember nothing, having been mere 
children at the time. Now I have pointed out elsewhere that the minimum of time which 
must be allowed to fulfil these conditions is four to five years, but there is practically 
no maximum, except that period beyond which it would be impracticable to procure 
witnesses. What is more, we have little evidence as to the date of the crime, and 
the placing of it in the reign of Neferkerec, which I confess is the date which I have 
mentally assigned to it, is quite uncertain. On the evidence of Pap. Mayer A^ the attack 
on the portable chest took place about the period of the war of the high priest Amenhotpe. 
But when was this war? We do not know. Amenhotpe was still in office in Year 17 of 
Neferkerec (Pap. B.M. 10068, ro., 4. 1-3), and we do not know how long he continued 
to be so. All we do know is that in the Year 6 of some king, probably identifiable with 
Menmarer, Herihor as high priest renewed the burials of Seti^I and Ramesses II®. Thus 
Amenhotpe may have continued in office until this year. His suppression might have 
occurred as late as this, and Herihor, with his eyes already on the kingship, may have 
been the suppressor. In this case the Renaissance of Year 19 may have marked a 
temporary set back in the fortunes of Herihor and a restoration of Amenhotpe and the 
king'*. All this is the merest theory, and its only value is perhaps to call attention to 
the necessity of being prepared to cut ourselves off if necessary from the belief that the 
suppression of Amenhotpe and the crimes of this trial took place in the reign of 
Neferkerer. 


* lice, ch- trar., -xni, li3. 

“ 6. 3 tt. Maspero, Les aioimes o.j3, .557. 

■* The fact that we have a date of the normal type in Year 27 i.s not fatal to this theory, for the 
Renaissance dating may have been in use only fivm Year 19 to Year 24 { = irhht msiet Years 1-6), after 
which the ordinary method may have been re.sumed. If, however, normal datings of the years between 
20 and 24 inclusive were to be di.-.covereil, they would need a great deal of e.xplaining away. 



CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 73 


The results, if such they may be called, of this study may be summed up as follows : 


Ramesses III reigned 32 years 

J) 

IV 

55 

6 

33 

5} 

V 

>3 

4 

„ at least 

)i 

VI 

33 

? 

33 

55 

VII 

55 

7 

„ at least (probably) 

>3 

VIII 

55 

? 

33 

58 

IX 

53 

17 

„ at least (po.ssibly 19) 

33 

X 

33 

3 

,, at least 

55 

XI 

53 

27 

,, at least 

Renaissance 


6 

„ at least 


Total 


102 

years at least for the dynasty 


With regard to the order of these kings we may say : 

(1) That R. IV immediately succeeded R. Ill is certain. 

(2) R. VI is certainly later than R. IV and R. V, and as there is no trace of any other 
king at this point the order IV-V-VI seems assured. 

(3) That R. VII immediately succeeded R. VI is highly probable. 

(4) R. VIII cannot be with certainty linked up with either his predecessors or his 
successors. He is probably later than R. VI (List of Princes), and there seems no place 
for him after R. IX. 

(5) The order of R. IX, X and XI seems indisputable, but the position of the ivhn 
msu't in relation to these three reigns is very uncertain. 


Journ, of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


10 



74 


OBJECTS OF TUTCCNKHAMUIS^ IN THE 
BRITISH MUSEUM 

By H. K. hall 


With Plates \hii-xi. 


“Lord of the Two 
Lands, N eb-kheperu-Rec , 
beloved of Upuauet, who 
rules the two lands of 
the South.” 


The following notes on some objects of Tutfankhamun in the British Museum may 
be of interest: 

1. A copper bowl, or pan (PL viii), measuring 17 ins. (43 cm.) on the widest diameter 
of the lip, 6 ins. (15’2 cm.) diameter of base, and 2| ins. (6 cm.) high. The lip is 
therefore greatly splayed, and on one side is 

depressed and pointed outwards to enable liquid S W' “Lord of the Two 
to he poured out; on this depression is engraved ^ g Lands, N eh-kU'peru-Rer , 
the inscription (see Fig. 1). | ^ beloved of Upuauet, who 

The signs are well cut; the cartouche enclosed W ^ 
by a double line. The bowl no doubt belonged !^' = South ” 
originally to some temple service of the god Ophois ^ 

in Lykopohs (Asyut). It is not of bronze, but of 

copper, with traces of lead; no tin or other metal whatever (analysis by Dr. H. J, 
Plenderleith, of the British Museum Laboratory). [No. 43040.] 

2. White fayence kohl-tube (PI. ix, fig. 1), imitating a reed (of the kind seen in No. 
51068, also illustrated). On it in manganese-brown (black) are inscribed the prenomen of 
Tutcankhamun and the name of his queen “the king’s 

great wife Ankhesenamun.” (See Fig. 2.) The cut round 1 e 
the tube below the queen’s name is intended to imitate = =j | 

the joint in the actual reed (c/. No. 51068). Height 7^ g 

6 ins. (15'2 cm.); diameter f in. (2 cm.). [No. 2573.] ^ 

3. Deep blue fayence kohl-tube of the same reed-type, gi ^ ^ 

but plainly cylindrical, without any attempt to imitate 

the reed-joint (PI. ix, fig. 2). On it in black is inscribed | 2 2 

“Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Crown- ^ ^ 

ings, N eb-kheperu-Rec (Tutcankhamun), given life for Igj 

ever.” (See Fig. 3.) Height 64 ins. (16‘5 cm.); diameter ' — Vr ttt 

} in. {2 cm.). [No. 27376.] ' rf 

To these is added for purposes of comparison an S ^ 

actual kohl-tube of reed, of about the same date (PI. ix, 3- Fig. 4 . 

fig. 3). The ink inscription, placed between two many-notched year-signs from the ends 
of which hangs the symbol of gold, reads “Eye-paint of Coming-forth behind the 
Beauties of Eternity.” (See Fig. 4; the sign ^ should be holding two with two more 
hanging from his wrists.) This is probably a funerary object solely, whereas the two 
fayence tubes were intended for actual use. Height 74 ins. (19 cm.); diameter fin 
(2 cm.). [No. 51068.] " * 


Fig. 3- 


Fig. 4- 












OBJECTS OF TUTSAN KHAMUN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 


JO 


and 


Fig 5- 


o - 


K-r 


Fig. 6 . 


4. Blue fayence funerary throwstick of Tutfankhamun : butt-end only (PI. ix, tig. 4). 
The rest of the object was broken off in antiquity. It no doubt came from an ancient 
plundering of the tomb. The object was bought by the late Mr. W. L. Xash many years 
ago, and was acquired with other objects of his collection in 1920. 

It was published by him in Proc. Soc. Bihl. Arch., xxxii (1910). 194; 

PI. xxix, 45. It is decorated and inscribed with the king’s names 
in the usual form (see Fig. 5), in black. The design is the con- 
ventional lily. Length 3 ins. (9 cm.). [No. 54822.] 

5. Trunk, with left arm, of a portrait-statue in hard gritstone, 
originally of Tutrankhamiin, usurped by Haremhab (PI. x). The legs 
below the thighs, right arm, and head are missing ; the left arm is 

damaged but the hand complete. The king is holding a standard (damaged). The right 
arm was anciently knocked off and re-fixed by two pegs, for which the holes still 
remain. There is a deep gash on the stomach. The king was wearing the helm the 
infulae of which are shown in relief hanging at the side of the plinth. He 
wears a multiple necklace and a gaufi'red linen kilt, from the cincture of ' 
which hangs an “apron” of feather-work( f). at the end of which was some- 
thing in inlay of another material which is lost, leaving the rectangular hole 
for it empty. In the middle of the cinctmre is cut very small. i ■ , ~f. 

Neb-kheperu-Rec, beloved of Amen-Rer.” On the sceptre or staff is cut in 
equally tiny hieroglyphs the beginning of the royal titulary (see Fig. 6)h ending 
with ^ beneath a cartouche which is quite illegible and has probably been 
usurped and then erased again. The inscription on the back of the plinth reads as Fig. 7. 
The group (sic) is the first on the label, as it is right up at the base of the neck 
of the figure, and the plinth cannot have gone any higher: in fact the cross-bar of the 
top of the “label” is visible in the photograph. It therefore pre- 
sumably means “King and Lord,” an unprecedented title before the 
Insibya, The usurpation by Haremhab is childi-shly clumsy, as 

may be seen from the photograph. The signs below the cartouche 
are a restoration by Haremhab. 

These usurpations are so wretched that they can hardly be regarded 
as anything else than the work of an absolute beginner, who wa.s 
presumably stopped or gave up the job after he had tried unsuccess- 
fully to cut the cartouche and a few signs, which are, however, enough 
to tell us the name of the king in whose reign Tutrankhamun s name 
was erased. The mending of the arm (substitution of a new one, now 
missing) looks as if it dated from the same time. 

The original hieroglyphs are well cut, and the work of the statuette 
itself excellent, showing typical traits of the ‘Amarnah period, with slack 
abdomen, broad hips and shoulders, accentuating the narrowness over 
the ribs, beneath the rather full breast. It measures ll j ins. (.50 cm.) 
in height and was originally 5 in. (12’7 cm.) broad at the shoulders; 
the plinth is If in. (4 cm.) wide, broadening slightly towards the , ^ 

missing base. Fig. 7 . 

The figure was given by W. McOran Campbell, Esq., in 1903. 

[No. 37639.] 

For comparison with it I publish (PI. xi) a .smaller headless figure of much the same 
' > The falcon wears the double crown and ha.s a 7 sign at his feet. 




•0^ 


' L supped 
■ 

12 =^ 


10—2 



76 


H. R. HALL 


tj 


Fig. 9. 


kind, in steatite, of Amenophis III, the inscription of which, on the plinth behind, has 
been erased with a view to an usurpation, which has, however, never been carried out. 
The only signs of the inscription visible are the three first (see Fig. 8), 
while further down can just be made out the three symbols of the 
king’s prenomen (see Fig. 9) in a cartouche which has gone. The ^ 
figure carries the crook of Osiris in the right hand; the hanging left pig's 
arm holds an uncertain object like a knot or short ‘"sash,” which 
may be a “sacral’’ knot like that held by the funerary statue of Menkheperre<'seub 
(see p. 1), which so much resembles the “sacral knot” of the Minoan Cretans. The 
treatment of the body is reminiscent of that of Xo. 37639, showing the fleshy abdomen 
and broad hips, which are characteristic of the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty and 
especially of the ‘Amarnah period. The dress is rather different, the apron having the 
two uraei at the sides and being represented apparently as of bead-work, not feathers. 
This figure was funerary in character, as we see from the inscription. It belonged to the 
Salt Collection of 1835, and measures 5| ins. (14 cm.) in height. [No. 2275.] 

Of the above objects Nos. 2, 3, 4 (more especially the last) were probably among 
the objects in the king's tomb, and No. 1, the bronze bowl, may also have belonged to it 
in spite of its Lykopolite inscription. They mu.st have left it as the result of some 
ancient plundering, proof of which is seen in the objects of Tutcankhamun and lye (Ai) 
found by Harold Jones in the Biban el-Muluk in 1907. in a rock-cut chamber that at 
fir.st was taken to be the tomb of Tutcankhamun. since lye’s was well known as the 
Turhat el-Kurud in the west valley'. All, with the e.xception of No. 37639, were bought, 
and have been in the Museum for many years. 

I have not included the “Prudhoe” lion of red granite in the Egyptian Sculpture 
Gallery (No. 2; ex 34). which bears Tutcankhamun’s name, in this list, because I regard 
this as certainly if not an usurpation at any rate an “addition” on his part, for both the 
lions (Nos. 1 and 2) undoubtedly belonged to Amenophis III and were set up by him 
at §ulb (Soleb), whence they were removed to Gebel Barkal by the Ethiopian Amonisru, 
who also inscribed his name upon them. Tutrankhamun merely added an inscription to 
one of them, recording his restoration of the monuments of his father Amenophis III, 

P ^ 1 M = S ^ 1 ^ C be (Amenophis) had 

made as his monument for his father, Amon-Re*’” Both lions 

seem to me to be undoubtedly by the same sculptor, and it is highly improbable 
that Amenophis set up only one of them, and Tutrankhamun later on the other in 
exact imitation of it. Also this would not be which usually means chiefly 

the restoration of inscriptions. I think that both lions were set up by Amenophis 
as a pair, as it is natural to suppose, and that Tutrankhamun merely restored his 
father’s inscription on one of them, which had got battered in the Atenist iconoclasm, 
when Amenophis’ inscription on the other lion was considerably knocked about, but 
was not restored by Tutrankhamun. There is no restoration by Tutrankhamun of 
the inscriptions of the other lion (No. 1). as Breasted, Am. Rec., 896 (ii, 363) implies: 
Tutrankhamun’s inscription is on No. 2 only. On No. 1 the inscription of Amenophis 
remains, with a record of Akhenaten’s vandalism in the battered second cartouche 
of his father, in which the name has been roughly replaced in Akhenaten’s 

peculiar manner by a repetition of the throne name in which the middle signs 

are practically invisible. Breasted (op. cit., 364, n. c) assigns this restoration to 
• fuEO. M. Davi.s and Uabessv, Tombs of HurmUnhi and Toautilnkhamanoa, 1912 2 3 125 ff. 



lute XI 



Statuette in .steatite f)f .\mciio[)lii.s III. Hritisli Museum, No 2275. 

Ili li/hi t)! iiii/ies (14 cm.) 




OBJECTS OF TUrANKHAMUN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 77 


Tuti'ankhamun ; but when Tuti'ankhamiin restored his father's monuments at Sulb he 
had reverted to Amenism, and would have spelt out the name Amenophis juoperly 
as in his inscription on No. 2; whereas Akhenaten actually did use a repetition of 
N eb-rnac at-Re^ as his father’s nomen after his death, so that the two cartouches 
N eb-mac at-Rec stand side by side, as we see in the British Museum stele No. 57399, 
formd at ‘Amarnah by the Society’s expedition of 1923-d, on which the dead Amenophis 
is represented with Tiye and described as in Fig. 10. This stele was certainly made 
under Akhenaten^. 

I regard the filial relationship of Tutfankhamun to Amenophis III as 
proved by this inscription, in default of any evidence to the contrary, 
and in my Ancient History of the iSear East (1913), p. 308, I wrote that 
he ‘ ‘was probably a son of Amenophis III by an inferior wife.” In view 
of the close personal likeness between Tutfankhamun and Queen Tiye. 
pointed out in the Illustrated London News. Jan. 1, 1927, I should now 
be inclined to think it more probable that he was her son, and that 
therefore he and Akhenaten were own brothers, although he was much younger tlian 
Akhenaten. The fact that Tutfankhamun married his niece, Akhenaten's daughter, is no 
bar to this conclusion, in ancient Egypt. Mr. Ulanville, in an article to be published in 
Parts iii-iv of this Journal, notes personal resemblances between Tutcaukhamun and 
Amenophis III which confirm this view. If we suppose that Akhenaten proclaimed his 
adherence to the “doctrine” immediately after his father's death, and that therefore he 
was associated with Amenophis up to his fifth year at least, he will have died, after a 
reign of seventeen vears, eleven or twelve years after his father. Smenkhkerec probably 
overlapped both Akhenaten and Tutcankharnun in his three years’ reign 2, so that 
Tutfankhamun, who probably did not reign more than six years, may, if he died at the 
age of eighteen or nineteen (as the examination of his mummy shows)®, quite easily have 
been the son of Amenophis III, even if he were not born posthumously. 

1 Griffith, Juuranl, .\ii JOiiCi,, i. 

- For the reign of SmenkhkerS'' there is no doubt whatever from the evideiiee ot tavenee rnig-litveK, 
ete., that this is the correct form, and that “SCaakerei" i " i, a nioilern mistake, see 

Xewberry, in the current Journal, py. 5-6. 

^ C.VRTER, Ton'ih of Tuto iditahifii, ii, 160. 



Fig. lo. 



78 


THE NEW PTOLEMAIC PAPYEU8 CONTAINING 
PARTS OF ILIAD, xii, 128-2G3 

Bv G. M. BOLLING 

The British Museum possesses a papyrus (Iiiv. No. 2722a) that has recently been pub- 
lished by Mr. H. J. M. Milne as No. 251 in his Catalogue of the Literanj Papyri in the British 
Museum, App., 210-11. Thanks to his kindness and that of Mr. H. Idris Bell (both have 
also been so good as to answer a number of iny (jueries) I have seen a proof of this publica- 
tion, and wish to attempt a reconstruction of its text, and to stress the importance of its 
evidence about the earlier tradition of the Homeric poems. 

The papyrus is assigned by its editor to the second century n.c., and is to be classed, 
I shmdd say, with P. Hibeh 20 and P. Jouguet as representatives of a type of text distinct 
both from the • wild ' Ptolemaic texts and from the later Vulgate. The unique character 
of the Hibeh ])apyrus was recognized by its editors immediately upon its discovery, and 
their judgment has been confirmed by the coming to light of a second and third specimen. 
If my suggestioiP that the “City editions are in reality texts of this, or a closelv related, 
type shall prove tenable, the importance to be attributed to these papyri will increase 
greatly. All three types of text seem, however, to rest upon the same foundation, which 
may be called the Old Vulgate, to avoid terms such as Attic or Pisistratean text, that would 
raise other issues. Their differences come from the fact that they have all been interpolated 
but ill different ways and to different degrees. 

Of the verbal variants- the most important is 7rXe[v]goi/(. in line ISSi*. The word occurs 
twice (//., IV, 528, xx, 486) in the Vulgate; both times in the same phrase as here. The 
MSS. all read Trvevpovi. but there is also indirect evidence for TrXeii/ioai that reaches us 
through Photius and Eustathius, beside a statement of Moeris that TrXeu/iwi/ is the Attic, 
irvevptov the Hellenistic form. Confronted with this conflicting evidence editors (except 
Nauck and Pick) have regularly played safe and followed the manuscripts. Linguists, how- 
ever, have seen that TfKevgmv must be the older form ; if for no other reason® because of 
the ease with which •jrvtvfxwv can be explained as due to popular etymology; and Wacker- 

' Thu External Ecidence ior Interpolation in Horner, 37-41. Oxford: Clarendon Pre.ss, 1925. The 
■separate jiosition of P. Hibeh 20 was questioned by Gerhard, Ptolem. Homerfr. 4. 

TTO 

2 129. 7roXv]K07rotT!)r a miscopying of TroXvKoiTrjv I 178. ayrupei/]?) 7 rep avayKTj liy false concord; oil 
oiiii.ssion of cf. Gerhard, op. cit., 20, n. 3. 188^ ipCpivri[v for .spellings such as vCptvrj cf. Brugmaxn- 

Thcmb, Onvch. Oram.^, 147 ; and note the effort.s to designate the length of the .sibilant by -Mfx-, -tra-jx- 
in Hekjiaxx, Silbenbildimy, 118. One may think more remotely of Cretan ^6p^oc, cf. Bechtel, Griech. 

/>ial.,u, 706. If the spelling is more than a graphic blunder (from vpp-t) something like [f-m] would seem 
to be intended. 250. an^a k fpcot -.avTU' Vulg. ; no interchange elsewhere in the Iliad is reported 
by Ludwich. 

2 But rf the etymologies given s.v. by Boisacq and by IValde, even if they are not free of difficulty 
For materi.d, cf. Kcehxer-Bla.ss, Griech. Gram., i, 73. 



THE NEW PTOLEMAIC PAPYRUS, ILIAD, xii, 128 263 


70 


nageP accordingly pointed to the behaviour of the mss. as indicating nothing but the influ- 
ence of Hellenistic speech upon the Homeric tradition. The dl.-jcov^ery of a copy, older than 
all others, that reads irXevfiovi, should now turn the .scales even for the luo.st conservative. 
Incidentally, too, it settles the form of Alcaeus s re'y'y^ TrXevfiuva^ o'lihii when' flu* last 
editor, Lobel (108), has chosen more wisely than his immeiliate predecessor Diehl (91) 
between similar variants. The discovery of this papyrus thus yields an item that mav be 
added to the lisP of instances in which modern scholarship has been similarly confirmed. 

Turning now to the larger issues: the hrst fragment contains the ends of lines 128 36 in 
agreement with the Vulgate, but in the opinion of the editor ••the lines following a]i])ear fo 
differ from the usual text. ' There is little from Mhich to form an opinion, but the shortness 
of line 137 (33 letters) seems consistent with the fact that the end of the corresjxmtling line 
did not reach the extant strip of pap}T:us. Then the next line, in which onlv ]/ia.a[ can he 
read, probably ditfered merely by having something like KtiXaSw fj,dXa ttoXXm for /revhXft) 
aXaXyjrm. 

The third fragment containing the begiuuings of verses 219-63 otfiu’s much the same 
aspect. For lines 254-5 the editor suggests that there were ••apparentlvnew linc"- sujiplant- 
ingtheMSS. tradition"; and again I think that it may be sufhcieiit to assume no more than 
verbal variants®, such as; 

i) Se /c[aTa vrjoiv Kovirjv <f>ep€V avrdp edeXye 
dvpov ’A[-)(^atojv Tp&xrl Ka't"FjKTopi /cvSoi oTrd^cor. 

The column contains also one plus verse (250“) at the close of Hector's speech to Poly- 
damas. The context leaves little doubt that it musf* have begun dXX' e7r[e-o. It can be 
completed on the pattern of any one of three lines : 

TTToXepLOV 8', 0 £ 0 s' TTapo^ evx^ac elvai cf. 11. , iv. 264. 

TTToXepov Se Ka\ dXXov^ opvvOi Xaov<i xi.x, 139. 

o(j)p' ejrl vpval ervvatpeda Trovrowopotat .Kill. 381. 

Precisely which one. does not matter much, as the line will In* in any case an interi)olation. 
I favour the first, because it is from the hook from which this text draws other interpola- 
tions. 

So far. then, we have a text that in its lines agrees closely M-ith the Vulgate; but in the 
second fragment the case is qm'te different. On it can be read the ends of 18 lines, and I shall 
try to show that another has been skipped haplographically. To 17 (18 ?) of these correspond 
verses 176-92 of the Vulgate. There is thus an exce-^s of at the most one line on the part 
of the papyrus; and if. as seems most probable, lines 193-4 were not in it. even this is more 
than offset. However as six (or seven) lines are entirely different from those of the Vrdgate, 
the variation of the two texts is much greater than the mere number of lines would 
indicate. 

Fortunately the new text can be restored, in substance at least ; I would not insist, of 
course, upon the verbal details of my reconstruction. With line 17.5 prefixed it must have 
read; 


* Spruchl. Unters, :u Iloinei’, li= Glottn, vii, (1910 . 

■- C.CCER, GnniJir. d. hma. Kritik. -li tk ; (Arh.vru, op. rit., index •».'•. "Koujekturen. 

3 For lengthening before vr^vs Ik, .Xiil. 742 is said to be the only jarallel. Perhaps io'tjwc was actnally 
written, cf. Gerhard, op. cit., 106 on such doublings. 

^ On the spelling cf. Phil, xvili, 170-7 il923'i; and on e’/c 7r\i;poi.'s wntine in papyri Gerhard, 

op. cit., 20, n, 1. 



80 


G. M. BOLLING 


175 {aXXoi S' afij> aXkrjai fia^nv efid-^ovro TrvXrja-tv ■} 
dpyaXeov Se fie ravra Oeov aSy] irdvT dyopelvcrai.] 
irdvTp yd,p Trep'i T€t')(pt optopei 9e\<7'iTi,S<iec iTvp 
XoLLVOV 'Apyeloi Se, koX dxvvp.ev]oi irep, avdyKp 
179 v 7 ]mv r)pvvavTo' deo\ S' a/caT^eijaro dvp,ov 
179 “ Zeuy yap Tpway eyeipe /ca'i," &KTopa] /erjSe S’ ’A;^aioi; 9 . 
r8r trill/ 8 ’ e^aXov AaTridai iroXep.ov Kaji SrjioTrjTa. 

182 ev 6 ' av Ueipidoov vloi, Kparepo'i IloXJiiTrotT/;? 

I S3 Sovp\ ^oKev Aapbacrov Kvverjt; Stas] X^XKOTrappgv- 
183“ Koparjv fj S’ erepoio Sid Kpordipoio] mprjaev 
183 *^ {alxPV TOP Se <tk 6 to^ 'oaae KoXvyp'ep.'} 

188 vlov S' ’ AvTip-axoio AeopTev<;, o^o]? ’’Apr]0<;, 

189 ’ItTriropaxop /SaXe Sovpl Kara /cpa^Teprjv vcrp.lvp[p'^ 

189® areppov vir'ep pia^oio, irdyt} S' eii] 7 rX 6 [i/]A<'Oi'i %£iX«f[oy] 

189*^ SovTnjcrev Se Treeridp, dpd^-pae Se T]evxe’ eir avrm- 

190 avTL<; S' eK icoXeoio epvcradp,epo‘; ofii 

190 “ i/io? virepdvpoio Kopeopov Kaim 8 ]ao 

19 r ' Apt icfidT-rjp peyddvp,op, eVaifay] Si opiiXoy, 
igi”' Tv'^e Kara KXrj'iSa irap’ ai/^ 6 i>a,] Xvae [ 8 e yvia. 

19 j o</)p’ o! Toil? ipdpi^op dir eprea, roipp'J al^[rjd)p 
■ 95 " (Srpop e? TToXepop Trv/cipai icipvpto ipdXayye^ ktX.) 

178. dxvviJ-(v]rj, avayKTj. 183. ^oXxo/ra/ii/oy. 183'**’. J!., IV, .^02-3. 189. vp()itvti[v]. 

189''. 7?., IV, 528. 189''. //., iv, .504. 190-'. /?., ll, 740, sil, 130'* 111 gT. On re-exiiimn,ition n i.s more 

probable than X. 191. ’.X. piv npaTov vulg. 191“. Of. II. xxi, 117. 195. Cf. 11, , xv, 343 (for the 

transition) and iv, 280, 195“. //., iv, 281. The line equivalent to 196 probably began with dXX«. 

The first point of interest is the presence of the interpolated lines 175-81 that were not 
in the text of Zenodotus. In view of the date of the papyrus this is not surprising ; we may 
compare the presence of II.. ii. 674 (perhaps also that of ii, 724) in P. Hibeh 19, and the 
similar behaviour of the ‘•'City" editions i. The interpolation now proves not to have been 
made in one jet; for line 180 is to be judged even later than its fellows Sid to kuI erepeoi; 
i^epeaOai, to quote Didymus's formulation of an Aristarchean principle. 

Then follow three battle vignettes, each told in four lines and each ending with a 
familiar formula top Se o-koto'^ derae KdXv'^ev, apulSriae Se rei/^e eV’ avrm, Xvae Se yvla. 
This symmetry^ is a strong justification for the addition of 183" that is needed to explain 
the pronoun of the preceding line, and could easily have been dropped accidentally because 
of the homoioteleuton. 

The second of these vignettes consists in the Vulgate merely of two lines (188-9) and is 
clearly the original text. We can see how its close Kard ^waTfjpa ri/^^/jcray, which corresponds 
to the Kvver]^ Sid xo-Xxo-jrappov (183) of the preceding vignette, has been changed to the 
colourless xard xparep^p vapiPTjp to permit the addition of two plus verses borrowed from 
the fourth book. Correspondingly we have for the first vignette two lines (182-3) common 
both to the papyrus and to the Vulgate. Only this time each text has expanded the 
original in its own fashion : the papyrus taking its verses from iv, 502-3, the Vulgate its from 
XX, 398-400. 

Between the two stands in the Vulgate a single line (187) in which Pylon and Ormenos 
are slain by Polypoites. The possibility that it too was dropped haplographically from the 
' Cf. my Extiii'ii. EckL. 40 and at the pas.'sages cited. 

- On tendeneic.-, to synniiotry in pajiyru.'? te.xt-., rf. (Ierhard, 07/. eit., on 11., xxiir, 154. 



THE NEW PTOLEMAIC PAPYECS, ILIAD, xii, Il’S-l’G;] 81 

papyrus must not be overlooked. I do not, however, consider this probable : because its 
presence would upset the symmetry observed. If it was not present in the papyrus it is 
most unlikely that the corresponding lines (193-1) were contained in that text, and so far it 
has not been possible to reconcile with their presence the .slight traces in the paj)vrus. On 
the contrary I have been able to reconcile them with the clo.se of 19-3. and it is to be 
noticed that the borrowing is once more from the fourth book. Without lines 19 3 4 pec 
TrpuTov in 191 is imjrossible, and some epithet (not necessarily the one I have chosen) 
must be substituted. 

The third vignette differs considerably in the two texts: and, what is more, then' is no 
portion common to both that can be picked out as the original. This in itself is strongh' 
suggestive of an interpolation Sia to /cat eLe/jco? t^epcaBai. The jairjiosc of the \'ulgate is 
clear. An original balance of two lines for the deed of each hero had been uj)set liy 
expanding that of Polypoites to five lines; a balance was restored by adding a .second 
exploit of Leonteus told in three lines patched together from phrase.s found in xi\'. 493 
(xx, 284, XXI, 113), XVII, 293-4, vii, U.'), The papyrus has taken thi.s interpolation and 
reworked it into its own four-line pattern, but without any more originality. 

I should posit therefore for the Old Vulgate: 

iS: €vd' av Tieipidoov vi6<;, /cparepo^; IIoXcTroiTt;?, 

1S3 Sovpl IBc'iKev ^npaaov /cvverj^ Sia ^aX/coTrappov. 

1S8 viov S' ’AiTipdyoiO AeovTev'i, 6^o<;''Apr]o<;. 
iSc) 'iTTWopayoc fSaXe Soup'i /caret ^(ixrrPjpa TcyjJcra?. 
i 9 ,s ocj/p' ul roii^ evdpAov arr evrea Kr\. 

This text has, I think, an advantage. For the two Lapiihs to be spoiling of thifir 
weapons the two Trojans who have fallen beneath their spears is perfectly in order; the 
later Vulgate, however, makes them despoil eight men. and for this 1 can recall no 
parallel. 

The tradition has been in two currents, and may be described with some over-.-5im2)li- 
fication as follows. In the first, the one that leads to the papyrus, each vignette wa.s 
expanded by the addition of ver>es 183->'y. 189^'’: meanwhile in the i.thm verse^ I8l-fi, 
190-2 had been added. Then the currents cro-ss, this la A interpolation (190-2) m, iking its 
way into the other stream of tradition and being there assimilated. Alterwards veIse^ 187 
and 193-4 made their appearance in the current that ends in our \ ulgate. 

The papyrus can show one other thing, though that but dimly. The editor, on the 
tacit assumption that there was no increment between verses 128 anil 173, could calculate 
that the columns contained 24 lines. Then between Fr. 2 and Fr. -1 either one coluiun is 
missing, and between lines 195 and 249 there is a minn> of ] 1 veuses': or two columns 
with a plus of 10 verses are lacking. In view of the general character of the text, the 
former seems much the more likelv supposition. Of couri^e the calculation can be changed 
by modifying the primary assumption, and operating with a column of different length. It 
seems, therefore, unprofitable to pursue the topic further. 

The papyrus illustrates again the truth that the value of these early texts will lie not 
in the extra lines they bring us. but in their refusal to attest lines that have hitherto 
appeared well established. 

' Before lines st.ind end.s from .1 column :] .i’,];'- TliC'c, it 5 uleate Imc'. would 'Cem to l.o 

220, 219; then at least three of the.se “minus" verses .sto™l before line 2is. Th.it the “iilus'' ver.se 21!) 
should appear thu.s mrsplaced is nothin'..; surprising. 


Journ. of Eg\pt. Arch. xiv. 


11 



82 


THE SONS OF TUTHMOSIS IV 

By PERCY E. NEWBERRY 
With Plate xii. 

N. de Garis Davies, writing in this Journal, ix, 133, remarks that in the Theban 
Tomb No. 226, the owner, “a royal scribe and 
steward, is depicted sitting with four nude 
children upon his lap who wear the side-lock^. 

A detached fragment shows that one of these, 
not the youngest, was a King’s son, beloved by 
him, Akheperrec The painting is a very rough 
and broken one, and it is impossible to say if 
all the children meant were boys.” As the tomb 
contains a portrait of Amenophis III sitting en- 
throned with his mother Mutemwia, Davies 
dates it to the first half of that great Pharaoh’s 
reign. “The appearance of Mutemwia in Tomb 
No. 226,” writes Davies in another place®, “is 
not due to the unmarried state of the king. 

A rough and damaged scene there shows the 
owner seated with no fewer than four of the 

royal children on his knee at once Who are 

these four children? The name of one of them 
(not the youngest) survives on a fragment as 
IAkheper(u?)rei'; another may have been Tuthmosis, the heir who died young, and a 
third Akhenaten.” In the article in this Journal, Davies says, “Here is a brother, and 
probably an elder brother of Akhenaten.” If, however, we examine all the evidence 
relating to the prince !Akheper(u)re<’ it will, I think, point to his being a son of Tuth- 
mosis IV, rather than of Amenophis III. The evidence is this: 

I. Tomb No. 226 at Thebes is of a “Overseer of the King’s Tutors,” who 

' This scene is figured by Davies in the PtnUetin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Dec. 
lim, Part II, 42, fig. .3. ' . 

In a footnote to Journal, ix, 1.33, Davies remarks that his “notes do not show whether the form 
•Akheperarer was pos.sihle or excluded. In any case O^^kheperreC is a variant which Amenophis II also 
used.” In the Bulletin article (p. 43) Davies gives the reading iAkheper(u)rer. My tracing, made two 
years ago, shows that the plaster is broken away below the ;^/>r-sign, see Fig. 1. 

^ Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Dec. 1923, Part ll, 42-43. Lepsius, KiSnigs- 
buch. No. 340, makes an i" AkheperureC a son of Tuthmosis IV, and so also does Gauthier, Le livre des rois, 
II, 304. 

* This title cannot be “is given by Gardixer-Weigali , Topographical Catalogue of 

the Private Torahs of Thehes, No. 226. A fragmentary inscription in this tomb reads 
the second title may be confidently restored “king’s follower” ; the third should be either ' 

"1 ' * a n 1 i 1 

— T™, “overseer of the tutors of the king,” which is found on a shawabti figure of Elekerneheh in the 
( 'airo iluseum, No. 46536, from the Biban el-Mulftk, see Journal dentree, 3393, and Mariette, Monuments 




THE SONS OF TUTHMOSIS IV 


83 


was also a “royal scribe,” and “steward”; bis name bas unfortunately been destroyed. 
Davies, no doubt rightly, attributes tbe tomb to tbe earlier half of tbe reign of Amen- 
opbis III, for in it tbe king’s mother is enthroned with her son. But it is remarkable 
that no queen of Amenophis III is mentioned in the inscriptions, although there are at 
least four children whom Davies considers to be children of Amenophis III. The names 
of two of these children have been partly preserved, as will be seen from the reproduction 
of my tracing of the original fragments of the inscriptions above the boys (see Fig. 1). 
The first name perhaps read the second ^^[U]; no trace remains of the third. 

Were there no other evidence, we might perhaps grant Davies’s surmise that Akhe- 
per(u)re<’ was a son of Amenophis III. 

II. Inscriptions in Tomb No. 64 at Thebes name two court otficials — (1) Hekreshui, 
who was “Tutor of the king’s eldest son Tuthmosis-Khafkhacw (i.e., Tuthmosis IV), and 
(2) Hekerneheh, who was “Tutor of the king’s son Amenophis,” and “tutor of the king’s 
children^.” The tomb is dated in the reign of Tuthmosis IV who, in two scenes, is 
depicted giving audience to his nobles. On the right-hand inner wall of the vestibule 
there is an important scene® which shows Hekreshu seated on a chair with the king’s 
eldest son Tuthmosis-Khackhafw upon his knee. This boy has the uraeus upon his fore- 
head, holds in his right hand the hek -sceptre, wears a pectoral inscribed with the pre- 
nomen of Tuthmosis IV, and imder his feet is a stool upon which nine prostrate prisoners 
are depicted. Above the seated figure of Hekreshu was an inscription^ giving his name 
and titles (see PI. xii); he is here described as “tutor of the king’s son the eldest of his 
body®, Tuthmosis-Khackhacw.” Above the young prince were three vertical lines of 

dicers, PI. 36, g; or ' \^iYi — “overseer of the tutors of the king's son,’ whirh is found on a 
shawabli figure of Huy, Cairo, No. 46548, from AVjydos, see Jotu-iud d’eniree, 4438. It is possible that the 
Theban Tomb No. 2:16 may be that of the tutor Hekerneheh who, in the reign of Amenophis Ill’s prede- 
cessor Tuthmosis IV, prepared for himself Tomb No. 64 which is mentioned below. 

• Hekreshu appears as ® statuette of the king’.s son Tuthmosis which was fumd 

by Miss Ben.son in the temple of Mut .it Karnak ; I h.ive published the inscriptions upon it in Bensox- 
Gourlay, TAe Temple of Mut, 328-329. (.Iauihier, Le Here dec rois, ii, 3(i:k makes this king's sun 
Tuthmosis a son of Tuthmosis IV, but from the data given in the pre.scnt paper ho is certainly to lie 
identified with King Tuthmosis IV himself. 

- The title — [fji “tutor of the kings children" appears on one of Hekre.shu's funerary 

cones. 

s This is given by L., D., in, Bl. 69, but some important det.iils h.ive been omitted. A pencil drawing 
of Hekreshu with the young prince upon his lap was m.ade by .lames Burton in the late twenties of last 
century, and is now pre.served among the Burton M.^S. in the British Museum {.hid. MS. 2.5644, f. 13, 14^. 
The uraeus is clearly seen in this e.irly drawing. Chaniiiollion has flescribed the .scene in his .Xutices 
descriptives, I, 863. 

^ The inscriptions have been restored from Burtons copy; the first . 3 . in the cartouche, omitted by 
Burton, is given in Chajicolliox, Notices descriptices, i, 863. The scene was badly damaged befsre 1844 
when Lepsius made his drawing. Describing the pectoral, Champollion says that it bore the name of the 
prince's father; he, therefore, thought that the young prince was a son of Tuthmosis IV and not Tuth- 
mosis IV himself. 

■' On a Canopic jar described by Daressy {^Rec. de tear., .\iv, 174; a i'^1' | j j 1 

w mentioned. Daressy .supposed that this prince was a son of Tuthmosi.s IV and 
identified him with the of the Sphinx Stela; but the of the Sphinx Stela was certainly Tuth- 
mosis IV himself, see Ekmax, Sitzb. K . A . Berlin, vi, 428-37. Gauthier {Le Here des rois. ri, 336) makes 
the king’s .son Tuthmosis of the Canopic jar-box a so,, of Amenophis III, but there is no evidence at all 
for this. 


11 —?, 



84 


PERCY E. NEWBERRY 


inseription; here he is called ‘‘the king’s eldest son Menkheperure'' ” ; this name, which 
appears also on the pectoral that the young king wears, is, of course, the prenomen of 
Tuthmosis IV, and he is here further described as “Lord of the Two Lands.” 

Behind the young sovereign and facing Hekreshu is figured the “king’s son Amen- 
ophis,” with his tutor Hekerneheh. Above them are seven lines of inscription (see PI. xii). 
In front of the prince are the words “king’s son of his body,” but 
the name, which was obviously Amenophis, has been destroyed. 

This young king’s son is shown wearing the side-lock, and he had 
suspended from his neck a pectoral inscribed with the prenomen 
and nomen of Tuthmosis IV ; a drawing of this pectoral is given 
by Champollion and is reproduced in Fig. 2. The prince holds in 
one hand a bouquet of flowers and in the other a sprig of green 
leaves. This little prince, there can be no doubt, was Amen- 
ophis, the son of Tuthmosis IV by Queen Mutemwia^, who 
succeeded his father on the throne of Egypt and was later known as Nebmarec 
Amenophis III. 

Behind Hekerneheh were depicted probably six^ young princes arranged in three 
rows of two each, but the whole of the second row is broken away and the names of all 
the princes except one have disappeared. The first in the upper row wears a pectoral 
upon which is the prenomen of Tuthmosis IV and before him is the legend “the king’s 
son of his body, Amenemhet.” This young prince is known to us from another source, 
for his Canopic jars (and perhaps his body) were found in the tomb of Tuthmosis IV in 
1903®; from this fact we may surmise that he predeceased his father. 

III. The names of the royal tutors Hekreshu^ and Hekerneheh® appear on other 
monuments besides Tomb No. 64 at Thebes. On the rocks of the Island of Konosso in 

‘ That Xebuiarer Amenophis III was a son of Tuthmo.sis IV by Mutemwia i.s certain from an insorij)- 
tion in the temple at Luxor (G.wet, Le temple de Lonxow PI. Ixxi, fig. 205). 

- G-iCTHlER, Le Urre dee rois, Ii, 290, note 1, says ‘‘on voit six princes, disposes deux a deux sur troi.s 
registres superposes, qui sunt probablcrnent des frtres de Tuthmosis IV; leurs noins sont detruits, et 
•souvent au.ssi leurs iniage,s.” 

3 C.xrter-Xewberry, The Tomh of Thoutmoeis /riod. Theodore Davis), 6-7, Xos. 46037-46039. The 
l>ody of the boy wa.s found in one of the chambers of thi.s tomb (op. eit., PI. x. fig. 31 

Besides the inscriptions naming Hekreshu mentioned in the text of this paper I should note the 
following; (1) A statuette of the king'.s son Tuthmosis found by Miss Benson in the temple of Mut at 
Karnak; the inscriptions ujion it have been published by me in Bexsox-Gourlay, The Temple of Mut, 
328-329. I originally thought that this “king’.s son Tuthmo.sis” must be a son of Tuthmosis - IV 
(Benson-(.1ouri.ay', op. cit., 328, n. +), but it i.s now certain that he ought to be identified with the young 
Tuthmosis (i.e., Tuthmosis IV) who is deiiicted seated on hi.s tutor’s knee in Tomb Xo. 64 at Thebes. 
I know of no evidence for a sou of Tuthmosis IV bearing the name Tuthmosis. The cartouche above the 
graffito on a rock in the island of Sehel (L., />., Text iv, 125 ; J. de Morgax, Cataloyue 1, 90, X"o. 84) which 
names a was examined by Mr. Winlock and myself in 1926, and again by me in 1927, and it does 

not read as given by de Morgan. (2) Three shawabti figures found by Petrie at Abydos 

(Royal Tombs I, 33; M.acTver-Mace, El Amrah mid Abydos, PI. xxxix, 3 and 4,i ; these are now in the 
Cairo Museum (Xos. 4S.329-30). (3) Four graffiti at Kono.sso; Petrie, Season, Xo.s. 21, 23, 39, 44. 

■' Other monuments than tho.se mentioned in the text which name Hekerneheh are (Ij A statuette 
repre.seuting the tutor kneeling and holding before him a stela, found when clearing out the tomb in 1899. 
(2) Many funerary cone.s from hi.s tomb. (3) Two shawabti figures found in the Biban el-iluluk and now in 
Cairo (46536) ; cf. Mariette, Monv.raents dicers, PI. 36, f and g. The inscription upon one of the.se gives 
the name of Bekerneheh’s mother Ment. 



Fig; 2. 












THE SONS OF TUTHMUSiS IV 


85 


the region of the First Cataract, there is a group of graffiti which date from the reign of 
Tuthmosis IV. One of these (see Fig. 3) names the ‘‘favoured of Amenrei', the divine 
father, Hekreshu," together with two young prince.s, "the king’s son Amenophis.” and 
the “king’s son Akheperurefi.'’ There can be no doubt that the Hekreshu here mentioned 

is the same person who is figured in Tomb 
Ho. 64 at Thebes, for he bears in both places 
the title Div'ine Father, and he appears in 
both places with the prince Amenophis. 

Another graffito- at Konusso (see Fig. 4) 
names the king's first herald Ref, the king's 
•sons Amenophis and Akheperurer, and the 
Hekerneheh. Here again the tutor bears a title which is also found in Tomb 
No. 64 at Thebes and he must be the same person who was buried in the cemetery of 
the capital. The tomb of the king's first herald Eec is at Thebes 
(No. 201), and it certainly dates from the reign of Tuthmosis H'. 

A superb model sarcophagus inscribed with the titles and name of 
Eec is in the Cairo Museum and perhaps came from Tomb No. 201 
at Thebes. 

On the evidence of these Cataract graffiti combined with that of 
the inscriptions in Tomb No. 64 at Thebes there can be little if any 
doubt that Akheperure'' was a sou of Tuthmosis I\', and not, as 
Davies supposed, of Amenophis III. Akheperure'" was probably the 
third son of Tuthmosis IV, and thus a younger brother of Amen- 
ophis III, not an elder brother of Akhenateu. The names of the sons of Tuthmosis I\' 
were therefore (1) Amenophis®, who succeeded his father and became Amenophis III, 
(2) Amenemhet, who died young and was buried in his father's tomb in the Biban el- 
Muluk, (3) Akheperuref and (4) Akheper(ka?)re<'. 

P.S. In Brunton-Engelbach’s recently published memoir on Gurob, there is given on 
PI. li a list of princes of the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties together with some of their 
titles. This list is apparently based on Gauthier's Le Hire dcs raid and unfortunately several 
errors have been perpetuated. The first herald Ref was not a son of Amenophis II: that 
he is described as a ‘‘king’s son" is due to a misreading of the Cataract graffito that names 
him (see Fig. 4). Again, Shemsukheper is given in the list of Amenophis Ill's sons, but no 
such name exists: the reading is due to the faulty copy of a Kono.sso graffito in Petrie, 
Season, PI. i, No. 23 (for the correct reading see Fig. 3). I note also that Tutfankhamun is 
given as a son of Amenophis III without any query mark. It would be interesting to 
know the evidence for such a definite statement. 

' Tlii^ gi'.irtito Is iiK'oiTecth- publiblied hy Petkik, I’l. i, N". 2'-i. wiio I'o.i'i' ^ in plun I'f 

Clklieperurei'. It is cmrcctly given liy L., JJ., 'rcitbaml iv, IS-, .-tud liy .J. OE Mnin j.vx, /, on, Xi>. .'i ; 

but the Litter gives it ugiiin on p. 10:3 in ,i Hundered form Ironi M.riiiETTE, 

- First copied by H,p\ in the e.irly thirties of List eeiitiiry llritish Mu.'Ouni, AdJ. MS. i'.iSAT, f. 1:3 v. . 
Published by Pei'kie, S'J'imji'. PI, i, Xu. :i2 ; L., /A, Te.\tb.ind l\, lilT. .1. I'K /, 70 , 

X‘o. lb, omits the mimes of the two kings sons but gives their ligures. 

■ Wolf in the Aeitsi/o'. /. "y. .'y/-,, l.‘i7 h.is iioteii th.it the ‘'King s Son of Ivu-li, Amenophis, ' men- 

tioned in ;i graffito iit Sohel. appears alsij in a steLi of Tiithnio.sis I \' at W.idi H.ilfa. He m perlnqis to be 
ideiititied with the Prince Amenophis son of Tuthmosis IV. 





Fi,? 4. 


O 


\ 


eta 




a 
1 1 1 


Fig. 3- 



86 


AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE AND THE ORIGIN 
OF THE COPTIC CONJUNCTIVE TENSE 

By ALAN H. GAKDINEE 


At the end of the Eighteenth and the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasties are to 
be found examples of a verbal construction at first sight quite ephemeral in its range 
and not at all easy to reconcile with the known rules of Egyptian grammar. This con- 
struction is of the type following examples are the only ones known 

to me^. 

A. Continuing an imperative. 

them {scil. the doors) be made of 6 cubits in their height, and thou shalt tell 
(it) to the builder Amenmose in order that he may make them accordingly,” Pap. Brit. 
Mas. 10102, 13-14 (Dyn. XVni)2. 

( 2 ) 

to be filled and draw out ,” Pap. Boulaq 15, a 7 (Dyn. XIX). There are two 

more examples on the side b of this same papyrus, but there the context is even more 
full of lacunae than is the present passage. 


B. Continuing an injunction or wish. 

(3) Tita be brought to thee, and 

contend with her,” Moscow 3917 b (late Dyn. XVIII) = IlaMflmHUKU MySBH 

A.ieKCaHdpa III (Moscow, 1912), PI. 2. 

(-i) “ttou shalt put them over 

the fire and add to them another 11 hins,” Pap. meH. Berl. 11, 10 (Dyn. XIX). Here the 
insertion of hr before dit is unique and doubtless a mistake. Mistakes are frequent in 
this corrupt text. 

C. Continuing a relative clause, this mostly having future reference. 

(5) ^^y king who D yet to be and 

who shall make lasting my acts,” Leps., Denkm., ui, 140, c, 8 (Wadi ‘Abbad; Sethos I). 

any king who is yet to be, who shall subvert all my plans, and who shall say: The lands 
are at my disposal,” ibid., 11. 

^ “as to any official who shall beseech the king, and who shall give a good reminder 

to confirm under my name what I have done,” ibid., 14. 


* The problem here to be discussed presented itself in connexion with example (:3) below, which is 
drawn from a text shortly to be edited by Kurt Sethe and myself. The examples (4), (6j, and (8) were 
supplied through Sethe from the Berlin dictionary, 

- I am indebted to Mr. Glanville for a knowledge of this iutei’esting letter. 



AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 


87 


(8) “I have faced thee, thou (disease) smn, I have faced thee, thou who art sunken 
in^the members of X, the son of Y, 

like him who flies and takes his stand waiting in a high place (i.e., probably 
like the sun-god Ee^),” Paf. Leyd. 343, recto 6, 4. Here exceptionally of j)resent time. 


D. Construction doubtful. 

(^) “and he takes the boat of any man in the 

army,” Decree of Haremhah 17. The preceding context is destroyed. Another yet more 
damaged example, ibid. 26, end, in Max Muller's edition {Egyptological Res^enrchcx. t, 91). 

When one of the later independent pronouns is found immediately preceding a verb- 
form, the grammarian’s first thought is to connect the construction with what I have 
called the participial statement (Egyptian Grammar [henceforth quoted as (lrnmm.\ § 373). 
the type of which is ■■'it is he who does” so-and-so. Gunn has shown, however, 

that when future time is in -view, the participle is habitually replaced by the sdmf form. 

' ^'^■^ Rare exceptions do exist where «//4- imperfective 

participle has future sense (Gramm.. § 368), but they are uncommon enough to be 
practically negligible. Since the construction found in the above-quoted pas.sages in all 
cases except (8) refers to future time, the participial construction is there virtually ruled 
outl. But there are other reasons still more cogent. At the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty 
we are, indeed, on the verge of the period when less importance can be attached to the 
t in such a form as ^ in examples (4) and (7)^ but the presence of the preposition hr 
before dit in (4), though not only superfluous, but also in all likelihood faulty, at least 
shows that the writer had the infinitive in his mind. Nor have we any warrant for 
supposing that the construction indep. pron. participle could depend directly upon 
a preposition. We shall have occasion below to refer to certain interesting, and perhaps 
to some extent relevant, constructions where the indep. pron. follows a preposition. But 
they do not, so far as we know, extend in Middle Egyptian to the participial .statement 3. 
Where it is desired to express, by the help of a preposition, some logical nexus between 
the participial statement and what precedes, the particle ntt has to be inserted, 
ex. ^ Pap. Kahun 29. 39. and this ntt cannot simply be omitted at will. 

That the verb-form is in reality the infinitive is proved, not only by _ m (4) and 
(7), but also by in a development of the construction to be quoted below (22). The 
form 2.^^ good evidence to the contrary; we are at a period where the 

omission of t does not count for much, though its presence still does; but further, this 
verb, ending in d, would be particularly prone to omit its t, and several certain examples 
of so written in the infinitive occur in the decree of Haremhab (11. 28, 29, 35, 36)'*. 

Moreover, it seems extremely difficult to dissociate our construction entirely from the 
very similarly used Middle Kingdom comstruction with /in- -i- infinitive (Gramm.. § 171. 3). 
This occurs after the imperative or the sdm-hr-f form, inter alia, and serves accordingly 

1 It will be shown below that hnC atf spui doe.s not necesi'iriljj refer to future time. However, luy jioint 
here is that in the.se oases which do refer to future time the [larticipi-il con.'.truotion would h,ue been 
replaced by ntf sdur-f. 

2 Perhaps also in the damaged example from Pap. Bantaq 15, h, see above under (2;. 

3 N iwt nhn t_m in Pgr. 1.595 c i.s di.'^po.sed of by Setheb critical note III, 9^2,. For another po.s^ible 
example of later date, see below example HS y 

■* The Haremhab decree omits the <=. also in the infinitives I,,) L 24, I 28 and i 3 in a very 

special case 1. 18 ibelow e.xample :31). I h.ave not found any case of c. tieing added where it does not beloiw. 
.so that in 1. 24 (below example iij is undoubtedly an infinitive. 



88 


ALAN H. GAKDINEE 


precisely the same conjunctive and prospective purpose as hn^ ntf + infinitive in’our first 
four examples above. Compare with these: 

(10) “let there be brought to 

me 20 women and let (lit. together with causing that) there be brought to me 20 

nets,” West car 5, 9-11. 

(11) “tlioii shalt make and give (fit. together 

with giving) him remedies,” Ebers 40, 8. Sim. ibid. 78, 19. 

If in such a construction it had been desired expressly to mention the author of the 
action, there is no doubt whatever that a writer of Middle Egyptian could have placed 
one of the later independent pronouns after the infinitive. Sethe was the first to point 
out this fact in Zeitschr. f. dg. Spr., xxix, 121 ; see too Gramm., § 300. We have no examples 
of the kind that are parallel in all details to the two last, but my assertion is proved 
by the two next, taken in conjunction with one another. 


nnrf-'-i. 

- - r “contract made by the prince about causing them to go and 

that they should go (lit. with going on their part) and that they should give (lit. with 

giving on their part) these two tapers Siut i, 312-3. 






‘it shall be 


m- 


. ' <=> =2s£= I ' □ 1 1 c=s I .c, c:r ; i , ^ 

quired through (?) the mouth of one commissioned (?) by him, by means of his saying it 
in presence of the official concerned,” Sethe, Einsetzung, 7 = Newbeery, Eekhmara, 10. 

The first of these two examples, though using line, is not after an imperative or 
contained in an injunction; the .second is contained in an injunction, but uses m in place 
of hic. Both agree, however, in placing the later indep. pron. after the infinitive. As 
Sethe {loc. cit.) pointed out, this later indep. pron. is here the pronominal counterpart of 
the common agential {j— + noun after the infinitive. It is, accordingly, plain that, where 
the scribes of Dyn. XVIII-XIX actually wrote example 1 above), a 

scribe of Dyn. XII and onwards might well have written That he did not 

ordinarily so write was due to the fact that the addition of the pronoun was usually 
quite unnecessary, the implied agent of the infinitive being clear without it. Later on 
there seems to have been a tendency to be more explicit in this respect, a tendency 
nmiiifesfed, not only by but also by such redundancies as l 

dating from about the same time (Gramm., § 468, 4). 

In view of the facts above quoted, there can be little or no doubt that | is 

simply the outcome of the older possibility with transposition of the pronoim 

from after to before the infinitive. But a purist of English could not fail to be scandalized, 
and every Egyptian grammarian will certainly be puzzled, bv such an outrageous “split 
infinitive as with on thy part the saying.” The explanation of this probably 

lies in various constructions which were current about the same period (late Dyn. XVIII- 
early Dyn. XIX) and which may very well have influenced the speech of those times in 
the supposed direction. In the very oldest Egyptian the preposition — is found before 
sentences with nominal or adjectival predicate introduced by independent pronouns; 
such sentences then fimction as nouns and are, in the terminology of my Grammar, 
virtual noun clauses. Examples are: 

(14) am Horus who avenged his father,” Pgr. 1685 (M; N has 
n + cartouche). 

(15) “for thou art Kef,” Pi/r. 1688. Sim. P?/r. 1287c; 20326; in 473 u 

is written for — . A Coffin-text example is quoted Gramm., § 151. n. 4. 



AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 


8 !) 


(16) “for she is your god, the daughter of a god,” Vrk. iv, 

258, 2, afchaistic text from Der el-Bahri. 

Examples from the Pyramid-texts with ™ -i- noun are also common (e g Pin 917 « ■ 
1139c; 2049). ^ ■ 

This ancient construction concerns us only inasmuch as it provides the model for a 
type of construction, employing the later, instead of the earlier, independent pronoun, 
which appears for the first time at the end of Dyn. XVIII. 

“according as thou art one true in the house of Ptah,” 
Dum., Hist. Inschr., ii, 40ff, 28: tomb of Neferhotpe, reign of Av. 

(18) “according as thou art one who does good things,” Inscr. 
dedicatoire, 66. This resembles the participial statement, but ir iht is perhaps simplv an 
epithet used as a noun. 

The analogy of such examples as these (for other slight variations see further examples 
quoted Gramm., § 154, n. 5) may have helped to transform our construction "T 

into though, smce dd is here infinitive, the resemblance is only of the most 

external, superficial, kind. But there is a quite different construction wGch may also 
have helped in the same direction. In clauses introduced by 77 ^nd its derivative " 
the general structural rules of Old and Middle Egyptian demand that the pronominal 
subject should be one of the dependent pronouns, as after the various non-enclitic 
particles (mk, ist) and after iwty {Gramm., § 203, 2). But soon the suffixes of the 2nd 
and 3rd pers. singular creep in, probably imder the influence of the later indep. pronouns 
Thus we get {a) from the relative adjective the phrase 

(19) place where he is,” earlier or instead of the 

hypothetically more correct * actually never found. See Gramm., § 200, 

end. And similarly we get {b) from the particle ”7 “that” examples like 

(20) “since he is one among these,” Lac., Sarc., i, 
213. The model is that of the sentence with adverbial predicate. 

(21) ^'22 ^ thou hast come in peace,” Zeitsckr. f. fig. Spr., xix, 18. 
is the old perfective. Pseudo-verbal construction, following the model of the clause 

with adverbial predicate. See Gramm., § 223, end. 

Suppose now that |7777 “together with the fact that” were to be followed bv 
the pseudo-verbal construction with pronominal subject of the second or third person, 
this might well take the form or *; and it is perhaps mere 

chance that our texts do not exemplify precisely these con.structions, which differ from 
(21) only in the substitution of one preposition for another. But further, it is certain 
that had ceased to be pronounced *‘ntet and had become *''nte even as early as the end 
of the Sixth Dynasty, when we find variants like _^"7' for ^”7 ; see Gardiner and 
Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead, note on iia, 9. We thus see that 77 would 
be a very possible form of the pseudo-verbal construction after hnr ntt, “together with 

that ” At first sight we seem to have this actual construction in the passage from 

the Berlin Medical papyrus cited above (4), but there are various reasons for not con- 
sidering this the actual origin of the idiomatic construction ^fiich was our 

starting-point. If we accepted the last-named view, we should have to deny the 
development of without expressed pronominal subject, which 

is none the less so obviously its direct ancestor. Further, the existence of only one 
example with hr before the infinitive would be very strange, seeing that our nine 

.Touni. of Egypt. Arch. xi\. li' 



90 


ALAN H. GAKDINEE 


examples are all relatively early^. Again, parallel to a hypothetical ^ one 

would expect to find examples with the old perfective like such are 

not forthcoming. And lastly, I have pointed out that the sense of 

examples before us, nearly always future, and future or prospective sense is not at all 
suitable to a construction deemed to have arisen from the pseudo-verbal construction. 

For all these reasons, I adhere to my contention that the idiomatic construction 
17' literally “with on his part the hearing,” arose from “with hearing,” 

through the knowledge that this could be expanded to *1^ “with hearing on his 

part,” and under the influence, partly of constructions like (17), and partly 

of constructions like (or with the pseudo-verbal construction. That 

hnr-ntt did in reality somehow become connected with the development from hn^ dd to 
hnr ntf dd is shown by three most remarkable passages from the Haremhab decree, from 
which one of our examples of actually drawn (9). These examples 

are: 


( 22 ) 


'i- 




>TJ 




fj i 

i I I I ! »c= 




A' 


I = ( ‘[But as to any man in the army of whom one^(?)] shall hear that they 


plunder and another comes to report, saying ,” Haremhab decree 24. 

the last word is of course for 


In 




(^3) ” these 

princes saying ,” ibid. 30. In a very fragmentary context. 

(24) “[As to any poor man(??) whose boat(?) is] taken away, and his freight is 
emptied out 3^,1'i i ^ Poor ii^an stands there 

bereft of his ,” ibid. 19. The restoration of the context is highly uncertain. 

It looks as though these three examples all formed part of long and complex relative 
clauses similar to those exemplified in the inscription from the Wadi ‘Abbad (5-7). That 
ill (^2) is infinitive is hardly open to doubt®, and it is both noticeable and important 
that no hr stands before it. In (23) and in (24) are probably likewise infinitives, 
though in the case of f 7^ it would be possible also to suppose that this is old perfective, 
in which case we should have an instance of the pseudo-verbal construction instanced 
in (21) above, but with hnc-ntt instead of dr-ntt and with nominal instead of pronominal 
subject*. The one instance (22) is, however, beyond all doubt, and shows us that the 
construction 1771 — a verb with feminine infinitive is here substituted for the 
unenlightening sdm — had as its counterpart with nominal subject the form 

a form perhaps quite mechanically copied from the corresponding con- 
struction with pronominal subject. It has only to be added that the writing ^77 for 
in the Haremhab decree is confirmed by often in the same inscription. 

To sum up, whatever may be thought of the analogies put forward above to explain 
the transposition of the independent pronoun, the fact remains that at the end of 
Dyn. XVIII and the beginning of Dyn. XIX there was a construction 177727^ used as 
a conjunctive tense with future meaning after imperatives, injunctions, and relative 
clauses referring to future time (see examples 1-9) and that the corresponding construc- 
tion with nominal subject had the form | 7'777 7777^^h‘^T~- 


* S\ e shall .see later that there is a strong statistic argument agaiii.st supposing that /o’ has been omitted 
before ahm in the example from the Haremhab decree, example (9). 

^ Restored from 1. 28. 3 above p. 87, n. 4. 

^ However, in a very similar context, 1. 15, r hr is sdm-f, a verb-form expressing action like the infinitive, 
and not duration like the old perfective. 



AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 


91 


The chief interest of these constructions has, however, vet to be pointed out. If we 
ask ourselves in what wav, from Dyn. XIX onward.s, the .sen.-<e of ' ' is rendered 

in Late Egyptian and Coptic, the answer must of course be, l)y the Conjunctive Tense 
Bohairic nreqeipe. To illustrate this corre.spondence of sense, I will quote 
examples of the Late Egyptian conjunctive ten'-e, employing the sanu' rubrics under 
which examples (1) to (8) above were classified. 


A. Continuing an imperative. 


(25) They caused him to come saving: fCj' 
_2_ assemble the heirs 


.111 I [ I aoociiiuic MIC jucii's and make them (lit. and thou shalt make 

them) see the fields, and divide for them." Mcs X 17. Sim. /'u/;. Jml. I'liriti .5. At 
the end of Dyn. XVIII we might have found j — j v.-”^. 








■■ Let 


(26) 

me be examined and let me see whether Urnero is the mother of the scribe Huv," d/c.v X 9. 
This example is quoted only because it makes us realize that we have as vet no evidence 
as to how the construction would have looked with the 1st ])erson as subject. 

B. Continuing an injunction. 

(2^) "do thou go to the treasury and 

do thou see how it stands with her." Mes X 1C. Cf. (3). from which we see that a 
couple of generations earlier if-^ might have been written. 


C. Continuing a relative clause having future reference. 


(28) 




. ( -Tiz: \ 


■ISi] ^ 


^ I, 








now as 


to every fortress-commander of the sea who shall come into exi.steuce, and the hou.se of 
Amun of Eamesses II is under his authority, and who .shall pay attention to this shrine 

and shall cause Amun of Eame.s.ses II to rest in it." Bilgni Ktda 9-l(»: similarlv 

ibid. 4: Hittite Treaty 32. The close parallelism of both substance and context of 
here to (d) d'> highly .significant. 

That we are unable to carry this compari.son of the two construction.s further is due 
to the paucity of our examples of hnf ntf irt. However, we can safelv sav that there are 
no Late Egyptian uses of mtii'f irt which could not in earlier times have been expressed 
by hnr irt or subsequently by hnc ntf irt. WitJi one .single exception: that exception is 
the use of mtwf irt in oaths, for example: 


(29) 




i <? 9 ,1 -=1^ 

' r 








'as Amun live^. and as 


the Prince lives ! If I tell a falsehood, I will (be placed) at the back of the hou.se.” 
Mes N 35. 

Erman [Xcudgyjytische Graminatik, § 220) considered this use tf) have arisen through 
an ellipse of some sort. Be this as it may (the theory is plausible), we know too little of 
the psychology of oaths to draw any linguistic argument from their expression. In the 
examples of hnc ntf irt hitherto quoted, the reference chanced to be to future time. 
However, there is in the meaning "together with on his part the doing" no implication 
which could confine IpG ntf irt to future reference. The ?noraent has come to declare the 
trend of mv argument. It is that nothing more than with the 

suppression of line and the disguising of ntf irt in Late Egyptian orthographv. Since 



92 


ALAN H. GARDINER 


contains no time-implication at all, my theory is not in the least impaired 


by Late Egyptian examples of 


(Ci (p 


continuing past narrative as in 


(30) I *0 him.. .and he heard all 

that they said,” d’Orbiney 1, 9. Possibly if we had more examples of hn^ ntf irt this 
would also be found continuing past narrative. At all events examples of hn^ irt (i.e., 
the same construction without expressed pronominal subject) can be quoted where the 
reference is not to future time; see Gramm., § 171, 3. 

I must now produce further considerations in support of my thesis that 
and 1^3!^ ultimately identical. The falling away of the preposition hnr is hardly 
more difficult to accept than the falling away of hr in iw-f hr sdm (eqciuLu) and many 
similar Late Egyptian constructions. That ^ should be rendered in Late Egyptian by 
is perfectly natural, though to those unacquainted with Late Egyptian habits of 
writing it may seem strange. The ordinary later indep. pron., in Middle Egyptian ^ 
and in Coptic uToq, is regularly written in Late Egyptian. Similarly, Late Egyptian 

writes ^ for the particle simply owing to the fact that some old examples of real m 
later changed into n, as for example the preposition m “in” itself. On my theory, the 
of never changed its sound at all; it survives in Bohairic as Sreq!, i.e., in 

the same phonetic form which it probably had in Dyns. XVIII-XIX ; would simply 

be an unetymological Late Egyptian writing (see Sethe, Verhum, i, § 220, 3). 

My argument would of course fall to the ground at once if, as is usually assumed, 
were really an inexact writing of which is also found in Late 

Egyptian papyri. Let us see what Erman has to say on the subject in his old, but still 
indispensable and un-superseded, Neudgyptiscke Grammatik (Leipzig, 1880). He there 
(§221) writes: tntuf hr stm, die dem iuf hr stm entsprechende Form, ist 

von dem einfachen mtuf stm halb verdrangt. Manche Texte (z.B. Salt) ge- 

brauchen es gar nicht mehr, md die welche es noch kennen (z.B. 0rb[iney] und Bol[ogna 
1094]) verwenden es auch nicht mehr konsequent.” So too the new Berlin Dictionary 
(ii, 165) gives under mt- (mtw-) “I- der gewohnliche Gebrauch mit hr und Infinitiv 

(das hr fehlt zumeist).” In both statements the truth has been correctly observed, namely 
that is infinitely commoner than But the correct inference has 

not been drawn. The correct inference is that was the original form, and that 

is as much a corruption of it as ^ corruption of 

® corruption of (see Sethe, 

Verhum, ii, 249, foot-note 1). These spurious forms with ^ arose by false analogy with 

historical writings of the old pseudo-verbal construction 
(see Gramm., §§ 323, 330). By the beginning of Dyn. XIX the hr of tw4 hr sdm and iw-f 
hr sdm had long since ceased to be spoken, but was stiU usually written. About that period 
hr began, for this reason, to find its way into forms where it did not belong, and simul- 
taneously began to be omitted from forms where it did belong, so that we already 
find sporadic examples of the now phonetically exact, but historically inexact, writings 

These two contrary tendencies — insertion of ^ on supposedly 
historical grounds and omission of for phonetic reasons — had not advanced far in the 
earlier part of Djm. XIX, so that we may still learn from the more careful texts of that 
period in what cases ^ is truly etymological and in what cases it is not. 


' The SaCidic dialect shortens this to nq and Akhmimic shortens it still further to q. Before nominal 
subject Satldio and Bohairic both have Stc, while Akhuilmic has tc. 



AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 


'J3 


Mr. Faulkner has made a statistical analysis of several inscriptions for me from this 
point of Gew, with the quite convincing result that ] in entirely secon- 

dary. In the inscription of Mes there are 41 certain and 4 uncertain examples of the 
writing against '2 certain (N3; S4) and one uncertain (N 32) example of the 

writing on the contrary, occurs thus 11 (or 12?) times, while 

never occurs; ^ I" T found once (N 22) against one uncertain example 
without ^ at the end of the same line; in “ (N 6) the scribe has tried to be 

correctly etymological, and has failed; he has succeeded in (N 31, 32, 33) 

and in (N 12) with no contrary examples; (Y 29) 

is a mishap. It is clear that the scribe of Mes has (apart from mtw-f sd>n) a .strong bias 
on the side of history and etymology. I conclude that he is historical also in writing 
aiid never 

In the Kheta decree there are only three examples of 
always with hr; eight or more of always without hr. 

In the Bilgai stela is always without hr. There are no other relevant 

constructions. 

Lastly, the Haremhab decree abounds in verb-forms alike demanding and receiving 
an etymological hr before the infinitive. Absolutely the only cases where a doubt is 
possible is in the examples with noun infinitive (above 22-4). where we have 

decided against hr, and in the one completely isolated case of mtiv-f: 


(31) “[Kthere is??] ® J Ti; " 

I Y a poor man without a boat, and he takes to himself 

A JJ ^ ^^Jsss^ o' i I / ■ ^ 

a boat for his work from another man, and he sends it forth to fetch wood for him, 
and he serves [Pharaoh?],” ibid. 18. 

Here 4_c for is evidently faulty, but there is no (, and thus this example joins 
the rest in supporting my thesis that takes after itself the infinitive only, not the 

infinitive preceded by hr. The establishment of this fact, taken alone by itself, goes a very 
long way towards demonstrating the hypothesis that 7 ^ from ( j_^,) 


At all events the analogy of rather 


1 . Si, for Sethe 


has taught us that ‘^A^l does not exist, being the true 3rd person forming 

paradigm with disappears entirely, so that we are left either with my theory 

of mtw-f sdm or with none at all. 

But to this argument some might retort that the single example of in 

the Haremhab decree absolutely annihilates the po.s.sibility of this having originated in 
sooing that the latter type of writing occurs in the very same inscription 
(see above 9). Those who are familiar with the vagaries of Egyptian scribes will not be 
perturbed by thi.s criticism. It is no unusual thing for the same text to spell a phrase 
in one place in its old historical form, and in another place in the phonetic Late Egyptian 
fashion. Thus the Annals of Tuthmosis III have both {Vrh. iv. 6-50, 3) and {ibid. 
652,6; similarly d'Orbin<‘j/ i, 1) and Anastasi V gives , A in 11, 6 for in 16. 6. 


It is true that 


in an official decree would be a particularly crass instance 


of such variation, but surely the objection will not weigh against the close parallelism in 
sense, in use, and in construction which has here been established between the two 
spellings. Moreover, one may well ask why Ax^ found more often in a text that 


^ Sl/rilE, ^ ^ 1»5. See >$ 12-1. 



ALAN H. GAKDINER 


D4 


supplies such scope for its employment. The answer can only be, that it is found more 
often, but is found in the writing or, with nominal subject, | „ • 

In Coptic there is another construction which is generally held to contain the con- 
junctive, namely the temporal tense-form ujjvnTq-covw “until he hears,” before nominal 
subject with variant forms ujxTeq and ys-re- in Akhmimic and Bohairic. It is 

in this last form that the construction appears in the oldest examples known to me. 


(32) “If it were a thief belonging to my land who had come to thy ship. 


I would have replaced it to thee from my storehouse, until they should find thy thief,” 
Wenamun, 1, 19-20. 


(33) gS ■”. “how long shall I remain cast away 

here?” lit. “until what comes am I here cast away?” ibid. 2, 66^. 

Demotic appears likewise to ignore the n of Coptic uja-n-fq in most of its writings 
(see Spiegelbeeg, Demotische Grammatih, § 148). In spite of this fact, it seems quite 
likely that uj^vurq, though on my hypothesis it could not contain the conjunctive tense, 
this possessing a suppressed but implicit 7mc, might be a form closely parallel to it. The 
originals of SMiTq, would then be conjecturally restored as *-=255 

and respectively. 

To sum up our results. The Middle Egyptian method of expressing the sense of 
the later conjunctive tense was by means of the infinitive. Towards the end of 

Dyn. XVIII the desire arose to give explicit expression to the pronominal agent hitherto 
only implied in this construction. Properly speaking, the correct form in which this 
development should have appeared was *|^-}- infinitive -f 3^, but under the influence 
of constructions such as £^^-r nominal or adjectival predicate and such as .£.21^+ 
pseudo-verbal predicate, the actual form adopted was + infinitive. The popularity 

of I . was confined to the quite short transitional period at the end of Dyn. XVIII 

and the beginning of Dyn. XIX. In Late Egyptian the preposition lin^ fell out and 
vras written for . The Bohairic conjunctive tense with iiTeq preserves this ^ 
in less disguised form. For nominal subject 1 TX N was at first introduced as the 
counterpart of nty being of course a mere writing of ntt. When the pre- 

position hnc was suppressed, was written for but here again Coptic supplies a 
more easily recognizable transcription in nTc-. Finally, ujei.iiTq cwtm may have arisen 
from *•=■225 on exactly the same lines as Bohairic uTcq-cwTCAi has arisen 

from 


POSTSCRIPT. 

By the kindness of Professor Griffith I have been able to examine the inscription of 
Xauri (4th year of Seth os I) before its appearance in the Journal^. The evidence from 
this quarter is interesting. There are four examples of followed by an infinitive 

without "j in future relative clauses e.xactly like (28) above (11. 48, 67, 94, 116); in one 
single isolated case of precisely the same kind (1. 90) f of 

In other words, the position is identical with that of the Haremhab decree, only reversed; 
in the earlier inscription the old writing with Inc ntf (or 1inr nty) is the rule, and the 

’ In 2, .36 occurs the form (? “until I go,” which I am unable to analyse. 

- See now Joaraal, xui, 193 ff. 



AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 


:)5 


innovation mtiv-f the exception; a very few years later )ntw-f has become the rule, and the 
exception is hnf ntf. One example of occurs (1. 112), connecting on from a very 

distant phrase “as to any people to whom anyone... shall come Both here and in 

the decree of Hareinhab (I omitted to mention this in the body of my articl(') Jn>c + the 
simple infinitive is still used in contexts like 

(34) USwV-'l"" 4*^^ “the law shall 

be exerted against him by beating him and exacting the work from him,’' 11. 4fi-7 ; 

sim. 79 and with the synonym ^ for 11. 50, 54, 93. Cf. Harcmhnb decree, 1. 28. 

Here the implicit agent of the infinitive is the indefinite "one.’' Later, when tin' 
use of the conjunctive tense had been extended, we might probably find ., L/ i 

mtw-tw sd “and one shall exact ” (from hypothetic L I j'-jj) in its place. But 

for this the moment was not yet. 

Still more important than the evidence from the Xauri inscription is that from the 
Elephantine decree {temp. Ramesses III?) also treated in Professor fTriffith'.s article 
Here is a passage which, with the help of M. Jequier’s corrections of the published text, 
reads as follows: 


■ A 


^ m J B&AAgJi 

rt] Jf bee-keeper( ?) or any person belonging to the temple 

who shall be interfered with and who shall say: 'A certain inspector (= is for p) or a 

certain soldier has interfered with me’ ." De Rouge, Inscriptions hieroghjphiques, 

PI. 257, 1. 7, cf. Sphinx 16, 4. 


Either the original has omitted 


which is very unlikelv. or here we have the 


missing link (with suppression of the hnc of hnc ntf) for V — the very link required 

in order finally to prove my case ! An entirely isolated case, where the scribe has taken 
it into his head to write the pronoun archaically. 

Professor Sethe, who has kindly read over my manuscript, makes one important point 
that I had overlooked. In all the cases of and in most of the early ones of -- 

there is no change of subject. Cases like (30) “they said and he heard mu.st, accord- 

ingly, be regarded as further developments of the consecutive ten.-^e. This holds good, 
however, only of pronominal subject. With nominal subject, i.c.. in examjiles of the type 
or i course there is change of subject. Thus is 

brought into even greater relief the singularity of the con.struction with nominal subject, 
apparently quite mechanically copied from the pronominal type. If a scribe of the early 
Eighteenth Dynasty had wished to employ a construction of this kind, he would have 
had to write 

At the last moment Sethe calls my attention to o, passage which shows that the 
construction postulated by me at least as a theoretical stage in the develop- 
ment from to the Late Egyptian and Coptic conjunctive, did actually sometimes 

occur in this form. The passage is from the well-known text relating the Destruction of 
Mankind : 


dl - I ' A. i'- A’" “ 1 A'- ' — ^ A _ ,As 

“Take heed to the snakes of land and water, ainl also make thou writings (i.e.. send 
letters?) to every region of thy .snakes where (they) are," Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch., iv, 
PL C, opposite p. 18, 1. 58 ^ op. cit., viii. PL 2. opposite p. 118. 1. 41. For the text of 
Sethos I quote from my own collation: that of Rames-es III has also nth. 


' .A. .xiii, lio,. 



96 


ALAN H. GAEDINER 


It is noticeable that here nth marks no change of subject, nor does any appreciable 
degree of emphasis appear to rest upon that pronoun. In other words, the use is 
practically identical, except as regards the word-order, with that of hnc nth sdm in 
examples (1) and (2), and that of mtw-h sdm in example (25). 

We have now. accordingly, good examples of all stages in the evolution of the Late 
Egyptian conjunctive tense. Those stages, expressed in a paradigm of the second person 
singular, are: (1) hnc sdm: (2) hnc sdm nth', (3) Jinf nth sdm', (4) nth sdm', (5) as last, 
but written mtw-h sdm. 



'J7 


NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF TIN 
AND BRONZE 

By a. LUCAS 

Tin. 

The word “tin” is often loosely used to designate both the metal and the ore. hut 
in order to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, the term in the present note will l)e 
restricted to its correct meaning of the metal. 

In antiqmty the principal use of tin was for making bronze, though occasionally it 
was employed alone. The early history of tin is very obscure and no e\-idence can be 
found to show when it was first discovered. The sequence of tin and bronze is also 
uncertain, though from the fact that the first recorded appearance of tin was in the form 
of its alloy bronze, as also from theoretical considerations, the probabilitv is that bri)nzc 
was made some considerable time before tin as an individual metal was isolated, just as 
brass (an alloy of copper and zinc) was known long before zinc itself was discovered. 
Either tin or tin ore, however, must have been used to produce bronze, of which tin is 
an indispensable constituent, though if the ore, as distinguished from tlio metal, were 
employed, it need not necessarily have been recognized at first a.s being essentiallv 
different from copper, all the knowledge required being a realization that ore from a 
certain place produced an improved form of copper. 

Although tin ore, so far as is known, does not occur in Egypt, the earlie.st u.se of tin, 
apart from bronze, that has been found is from Egypt and the earliest references to tin 
that are known are also possibly Egyptian. Thus the first objects of tin of which anv 
records can be traced, namely a ring^’^ and a pilgrim bottle®, are from Egyptian graves 
of the Eighteenth Dynasty (1580 b.c. to 1350 b.c.). A ring, consisting of an alloy of tin 
and silver, is also known from the same period'* and an ore of tin (the oxide) was 
employed in Egypt in small amount from the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards for imparting 
a white opaque colour to glass®’®. The earliest reference.s to tin that can be found are 
three that occur in the Harris Papyrus’, an Egyptian document of the Twentieth 
Dynasty (1200 b.c. to 1090 b.c.). The next references in chronological order are in 
Homer® (ninth cent. B.c.), then another Egyptian reference of the Twenty-fifth Dvna^ty’ 
(712 B.c. to 663 B.c.), after which come four references in the Bible®, one in Xumbers 

' W. M. Flinder.s Petrie, Th<’ Arh and Crafti< of Aacivut E'j/itit, 1010, 104. 

.1. H. Gl.\i».stoxe, ()i> Alotallo' Copi^o'^ Tm o ad Antinioay Jron* Aariaat Epy^'t^ in Poin-. Soa_ PiJ,l. Ao' /. 

XIV, 1S92, 220 

■’ E. Pv. Ayrtox. C. T. r'uRELLY and A. E. P. Weio.vle, Ahyjn.f, iii, 1004, 50. 

' C. R. tViLl l.YM.s, Oo/J and Silcea Jioj-alry and Rdatvd 1024, 20, 02. 

' B. Xel'M.ixx and (1. Koty<i.\, Z. far unyior. Cl'vin., 102.), 770-780, 857-804. 

H. 1). PaRiiUI, La carrurli: ea 1008, lU, 4.5. 

^ .1. H. BRE.VaTED, Aai'i'ait U.a.’oi'd.i of Eyyjtt, IV, 245, .302. 385, 020. The ui,;,uiuie of the wurd tr.iua- 
lated ’‘till'’ is however stateil to be doubtful. 

t nir(d. XI, 25, 34; xviii, 474, 565; xx, 271; xxi, 592; xxiii, .503, 561. 

“ yumber.% 31, 22; Isaiah, 1. 25 the R.V. give.s the alternative reading “alloy'" ; Ezikid 22, Is and 
20: 27, 12. 

.lourn. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. ];> 



98 


A. LUCAS 


(about fifth cent. B.c.), a doubtful one in Isaiah (either eighth or fifth cent, b.c.) and 
two in Ezekiel (sixth cent, b.c.), then Herodotus^ (fifth cent, b.c.), Diodorus Siculus^ 
(first cent. B.c.), Julius Caesar® (first cent, b.c.), Strabo^ (first cent. b.c. to first cent, a.d., 
in one instance quoting Posidonius of the second to first cent, b.c.), Pliny® (first cent, a.d.) 
and other classical writers. 

In the first century a.d. tin was being shipped by way of Egypt to Somaliland and 
India®, but from where it was obtained is not stated. Por all practical purposes tin may 
be said not to occur naturally in the metallic condition, since if it does occur, about 
which there is some doubt, it is in such small quantity as to be negligible. The form in 
which tin is found in nature is in the combined state as a mineral, the principal and 
only tin mineral of importance being the oxide (cassiterite or tinstone), though a sulphide 
combined with the sulphides of copper and iron (stannite, stannine or tin pyrites) is 
found in small quantity in certain localities. 

Metallic tin is one of the easiest metals to produce and it may be obtained by 
simply heating the oxide with coal or charcoal, the latter being the fuel employed 
anciently, since the former was unknown. Charcoal, too, was the fuel generally used for 
smelting until about the eighteenth century a.d. The metal, however, cannot be pro- 
duced from the sulphide by any such simple means, which is proof that this ore was not 
employed anciently as a source of tin. 

Tin oxide occurs in two forms, one in veins (lodes), always in granite or granitic 
rocks and occasionally associated with copper ore, and the other as pebbles, gravel or 
sand, derived from the disintegration of rocks bearing vein ore, the debris from which 
has been carried and depo.sited by water. 

Tin ore (cassiterite) is heavy and usually dark brown or black in colour and, except 
the weight, there is nothing to suggest that it is a metallic compound. It is frequently 
found in the same alluvial gravels as gold, and since both are obtained by the same 
method, namely by washing away the lighter material with running water, it is exceed- 
ingly probable that when gold was being searched for the heavy tin oxide, which, how- 
ever, is not nearly so heavy as gold, would be noticed and it seems likely that the 
alluvial ore was discovered in this manner. On account of this association with gold and 
also because the alluvial ore occurs in more accessible places and is more easily mined 
than the vein ore, it was probably alluvial ore that was worked first deliberately as a 
separate ore’’. 

The locality where tin ore was first found has never been satisfactorily established 
and claims have been made for Europe®, Asia® and Africa^® respectively. These may now 
be examined. From considerations of the state of civilization of various countries the 
enquiry may be hmited to Egypt, Western Asia, South-Eastern Europe, Central Europe 

' III, 11-5. - Historiml Library, v. 11. 

3 De Bello Oallico, v, 12. ^ Geography, in, il, 9 and v, 11 ; xv, ii, 10. 

Natural History, iv, .30, .34, 36; vil, 57 : xxxiv, 47, 48. 

“ tv. H. ScHOFF, The Pervpl'is of the Erythraean Sea, Xew York, 1912, 33, 42, 45. 

t Tlii.s doe.s not les.-?en the likelihood that it was the vein ore that was originally employed for making 
bronze, .since this need not have been recognized at the time as a separate ore and even it.s pre.senco may 
not have been known, if it occurred, a.s suggested, as an accidental admixture with copper ore. 

W. M. Flixder.s Pethib, op. cit.. 101. 

“ G. Elliot Smith, 'u) The Ancient Egyptians, 1923, 12, and (6) Article Anthropology, Ency. Brit., 
12th ed., 1922. 

H. C. Hoover and L. H. Hoover, Note to tran.slation of Agricola’.s De Re Metalliea, 1912, 412. 



NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BRONZE 


1 )',) 


and. Africa, other than Egypt. In this area, so far as can be ascertained, tin ore occurs 
only in Bohemia, Saxony, Tuscany, Elba, Armenia, Persia. [)o.-;siblv Scria and in \Ve.st, 
Central and South Africa. Many otherwise likely countries, including Egypt, Turkestan, 
Mesopotamia, Arabia, Caucasia, Georgia, Asia Minor, Crete, Greece, Cyprus and Palestine, 
may all be dismissed from the enquiry, since, so far as is known, tin ore does not occur 
in any of them. 

BoJietnia and Saxony. 

Bohemia and Saxony are contiguous and the ore deposits in the two countries aie 
continuations one of the other and in neither case is there anv evidence of tin-miiiinji 
before about the twelfth century There is also no trace of any tradi' in tin 

between these places and the eastern Mediterranean region, which must have taken place 
at an early date if tin were originally a we.stern and not an eastern product, and any 
such trade existing in classical times would almost certainly have been recorded. The 
absence of any mention of a trade in tin from Bohemia and Saxony camifit have been 
because the ore only occurred in small amount and soon became exhausted, a.s is suggested 
was the case with the Western Asia ore, since the mines are still productive, though now 
only on a small scale. The fact that the ore apparently occius only in the vein and not 
in the alluvial forui^’^ is another slight indication that it was not employed as a .source 
of metallic tin at an early period. Also, the Bronze Age of this region began later than 
is to be expected had it been the home of the indastry. 

Tuscany. 

MTth regard to Tuscany there is evidence of earlier working than in Bohemia and 
Saxony, but otherwise the case is much the same. The Tu.scany ore occurs only in very 
small amount, being sparsely distributed in veins of limonite (an iron ore) and is 
associated with small quantities of copper minerals-’. Since the ore is in the vein forma- 
tion and not as an alluvial deposit it is unlikely to have been a very early source of tin 
and from the fact that the iron ore in which it occurs was apparently worked concur- 
rently -with the tin oxide it becomes almost certain that thv exploitation of the latter 
must be dated to the comparatively late period when metallic iron was known and was 
smelted from its ores in Italy, which was not before the latter half of the second 
millennium b.c. The two tin buttons from the sepulchral cave of Monte Bradoni in 
Etruria®, which have been attributed to the third millennium b.c. on account of a dagger 
of Early Minoan type (E.M. ii) found with them, need explanation, but if the objects 
can be dated to the latter part of the second millennium b.c., which does not seem 
excluded by the archaeological evidence, the presence of the tin. even though obtained 
from the local mines, of which there is no proof, in no way conflicts with an earlier 
knowledge of this metal elsewhere. 

* P. vox Lichtex’fei.s, quoted by J. AV. Mellor in o,,,/ 7’/<' o,-. 'b-o/ (.'h- VII, lOiiT, its. 

- G. AI. Davies, Tin Orn.% 1919, «0. 

•* J, G. AVilkix’.sOX' in footnote to IT ItawIiiiffonG Ir.-iii'lation , in, llo. The ■^tiitoincnt of 

writer .seems to lie lia.seJon M.ittliew l’,iri>, who relates th.it a Corui'liiuan tu'.-t ih-ioxert-d tin m I leriu.my 
in 1241 {Uisturia Miij'ii- Anyli’if, London, 1571,. 

t \V. R. Jox-E.s, Tinjiddi »J th.: World. 192.-), 14.5. 

° W. R. Jox"ES, op. clt., 1-56. 

‘ V. Gordox' Childe, Thr Dan-r of Cirdi'^oii,,,,. I92.5. h;?. 


13- 2 



]00 


A. LUCAS 


Elba. 

In Elba only isolated specimens of tin ore have been found and there is no evidence 
of ancient mining^. 

Armenia. 

With respect to Armenia de Morgan says that tin ore has not been found in Russian 
Armenia^, but Karajian states that this mineral exists in the Kurbaba mountains near 
Tillek®; between Sahend and the river Araxes associated with copper ore and therefore 
probably in the vein form; also near Migri on the Araxes and in Hejenan*. Haverfield 
also says that tin ore is found in Armenia®, but does not give his authority. 

Persia. 

As to the presence of tin ore in Persia there can be no doubt. Strabo states that in 
his day it was foimd in Drangiana® (Khorasan); de Morgan says that it occurs at about 
25 kilometres from Tauris and at Azerbeidjan, though not at Khorasan^; Haverfield, 
however, says that it does occur in Khorasan®, as does the writer of the British Museum 
Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age, who also mentions two other localities, namely 
Astrabad and Tabriz respectively®. Moustafa Khan Fateh states that tin ore occurs 
between Sharud and Astrabad®, while another writer says that it is found in the 
Kuh-i-Benan mountains and also further north-west along the same belt in the Qara 
Dagh mountains^®. There is no evidence to show whether the Persian ore is in the vein 
form or whether it is alluvial or both. 

Syria. 

With regard to Syria, Karajian states that “The ancient records show that tin, 
cassiterite ore, was mined near the present town of Sinous and also near Aleppo and 
Toll says that “Tin deposits in the Kesserwan district were examined and approved by 
Australian engineers^^.” This district is a little to the north-west of Beirut. No con- 
firmation of tin ores near Sinous or Aleppo can be obtained, and that reported from 
Kesserwan, if present, is probably in very small quantity and there is no evidence that 
it was worked anciently. 

Africa. 

Tin ores are known to occur in Nigeria, the Gold Coast (small amount), Nyassaland 
(small amount), Belgian Congo, Southern Sudan, Portuguese East Africa (small amoimt), 
South-West Africa, Rhodesia, Union of South Africa (Transvaal, Cape Province and 
Natal) and Swaziland In Rhodesia and the Northern Transvaal ancient workings 

‘ G. M. Davies, op. cit., 82. 

- J. DE Morgan, Mi-uion scientifique au Caacase, i, 1899, 15, 34, 35. 

^ H. A. K.AR.AJI.AX, Mineral Resources of Armenia and Anatolia, 1920, 186. 

^ H. A. Karajian, op. cit. 

’’ F. Haverfield, Romano-British Cornwall, 1924, 

Geography, ii, 10. < J. de Morgan, Mission scientifique en Perse, in, 1905, 119. 

' LniiJon. 1920, 8. 

“ Moust.afa Khan Fateh, The Economic Position of Persia, 1926. 

1" Geog. Section Naval Intel. Div., Naval Staff, Admiraltv, Geol. of Mesopotamia and its Borderlands, 
69, 70. . J r 

” I. M. Toll, The Mineral Resources of Syria, in Eng. and Mining Joiirn., cxii (1921), 851. 

W. R. .Jones, op. cit., 254-.302. n G. M. Davies, op. cit., 47-56, 91-93. 

P. M. L.vrken, An Account of the Zande, in Sudan iVotes and Records, ix (1926), 6. 



NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY (»F TIN AND BRONZE U)1 


for tin ore, the remains of smelting furnaces, small stacks of tin ore (cassiterite) and 
copper ore (malachite), tin ingots and lumps of bronze have been found 

At first sight therefore it might appear that there was sufficient I'vidence to raise 
the presumption of an African origin for the earliest tin and bronze known in Egypt, 
but on a closer examination of the facts any such origin is seen to be so very improbable 
as to be practically disproved. Thus except in Nigeria, Rhodesia, and the Transvaal there 
is no evidence whatever that the deposits of tin ore were even known, much less worked, 
until quite recentlv. With regard to Nigeria it is stated that the alluvial ore was worked 
by the native inhabitants before its existence was known to Europeans^, but as this 
only refers to the modern exploitation by Europeans since 1884 it does not carry tlie 
matter very far back and it is in no way improbable that the knowledge of tin ore and 
the methods of treating it to produce the metal were originally derived from European 
sources, possibly Portuguese. In Rhodesia and the Transvaal, although the remains of 
the industry are admittedly old, there is no evidence that they are of such antiquity as 
to link them up with the Bronze Age in Egypt. 

It should not be forgotten, too, that the Egyptian Bronze Age is indissolubly con- 
nected with the Bronze Age both in Western Asia and in Europe, and that if the first 
tin and bronze known in Egypt came from Africa the early tin and bronze of both 
Western Asia and of Southern Europe must also have come from Africa. It is incon- 
ceivable, however, that material from countries situated to the south or south-west of 
Egypt should have been traded in quantity for many years to Egypt and through Egyjrt 
without leaving any evidence of the traffic or any trace or knowledge of either tin or 
bronze on the way, and no such evidence or traces are known. 

Western Europe. 

No account of tin would be complete without reference to tin from Western Eurojjc. 
The early history of this is obscure, but the known facts may be considered. Tin ores 
occur in Spain, Portugal, France and Britain and these sources may now be dealt with. 

Spain and Portugal. 

These two countries may conveniently be considered together. The principal deposits 
of tin ore are .situated in the provinces of Salamanca and Zamora in tlie west of Spain, 
in the provinces of Orense, Pontevedra and Corunna in the north-west of Spain and in 
the provinces of Troz os Montes and Beira Alta in northern Portugal. Other and 
smaller occurrences are found in the provinces of Murcia and Almeria in South-East 
Spain 

The tin ores of Spain and Portugal are in the form both of lodes and of alluvial 
deposits and are still mined, the present-day production, however, being small, especially 
in Spain'*’®. The date when they were first worked is unknown. The earliest certain 
references to tin from the peninsula are those of Diodorus Siculus® (first cent, b.c.), 
Strabo^ (first cent. b.c. to first cent, a.d., who quotes Posidonius of the second to first 
cent. B.c.) and Pliny® (first cent, a.d.), but very probably the tin trade from the West 

' Aaci'JvA Afric'iii Afet'illnri/g, in Mining Mag., 8ei>l. ^6, 1920. 

- phi; AntigwirAs .Itnii-n., VII (1927,), 74, qtioting Smith Afriom Mining nmt Eng. Jmirn., July 24, 
1026, 596. 

3 tv. E. JoxES, op. nit., 2-56. 

1 G. M. D.'lVies, op. nit.. S2, S4. ‘ tt . R. .roxK.s, op. cit., l.')0-156. 

Historinal Liimanj, v, 11. ^ tin,„ji\ij,li,/. iii, v, II .uiil li. 9. 

’ Jotnrol Ilistorii, xx,\iv, 47. 



102 


A. LUCAS 


to Greece mentioned by Herodotus^ (fifth cent. B.c.) was at least in part from Spain- 
Portugal. 

Although it is frequently stated that the Spanish-Portuguese tin ores were worked 
by the Phoenicians, no evidence for this can be found and the only certain connexion 
between these people (who were essentially maritime traders and not miners) and tin is 
that Strabo states that they carried on a trade in tin from Gades (Cadiz). This might 
therefore take the age of tin-mining in the peninsula further back than the earliest date 
yet mentioned, namely the time of Herodotus, but it could not be before the eighth 
cent. B.C., since, although tradition assigns the foimdation of Gades to about 1000 b.c., 
there is no archaeological evidence for the Phoenicians anywhere in the Western 
Mediterranean before about the middle of the eighth cent. b.c. ^ 

If the knowledge of tin reached Spain from the Bast, as it almost certainly did, it 
would be expected that the south-eastern ores, which are nearest to the point where the 
eastern influence would first penetrate and not very far from the coast, would be 
exploited first; but no evidence that they were known anciently can be traced. This, 
however, may be explained on the assumption that these deposits, which are compara- 
tively small, were soon practically exhausted and after the more extensive deposits of 
the north-west had been discovered the former became relatively unimportant and were 
no longer worked. 

The ores described by Strabo and Pliny were those in the north-west of the penin- 
sula. The former writer, quoting Posidonius, states that tin was found amongst the 
Artabri^ (the people of Galicia) and the latter says that it was obtained from Galicia 
(North-West Spain) and Lusitania* (Portugal and adjoining parts of Spain). 

According to Diodorus® the tin ore was not upon the surface of the ground, but was 
dug up. This does not necessarily mean that it was vein ore, but might apply equally 
well to alluvial ore that was covered, as is usually the case, with some overburden. On 
this point, however, both Strabo and Pliny would seem to contradict Diodorus. Thus 
Strabo says that the earth in which the tin ore occurred was “brought down by the 
rivers; this the women scrape up with spades and wash in sieves®,” while Pliny says of 
the ore that “It is a sand found on the surface of the earth and of a black colour and 
is only to be detected by its weight. It is mingled with pebbles, particularly in the 
dried beds of rivers*.” Manifestly the ore known to both these writers was alluvial. 

France. 

The tin ores of France occur in two localities, namely in the centre of the country 
and in Southern Brittany and, although no longer of commercial importance, there are 
ancient workings in both places. The former, so far as can be ascertained, are in lodes, 
while in Brittany both vein and alluvial ores occur Geographically, France, 

especially Brittany, is situated mid-way between the Spanish peninsula and Britain, and 
unless tin was discovered spontaneously in different centres in the same chronological 
order as the countries are situated geographically, of which there is no proof and little 

* HI, 115. - The Ca/iib. Ancient History, ir, 1!124, 5S1. ^ Geoyraphy, iii, ii, 9. 

* Satiiral History, xxxiv, -17. ^ Historical Library, v, 11. 

•> W. K. JoxES, op. cit., 141, 142. " G. M. Davies, op. cit., 76-78. 

® C. Daryll Ford, Megaliths and Metals in Brittany, in Man, xxvi (1926'i, 1-37. 

» M. Gary’, The Greeks and Ancient Trade with the Atlantic, in J.H.B., xliv (1924), 166-179. 



NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BRONZE 103 


probability, it seems reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of tin-mining spread 
northwards from Spain. 

Although the amount of tin ore in France is very .small, the deposit.^ have been 
worked intermittently from very early times until a comparatively recent period (19]S)k 
The classical writers entirely ignore the tin from France, unles.s “the barbarians wlio 
dwell beyond the Lusitanians” mentioned by Strabo’ were the inhabitants of France, oi- 
the Oestrymnides of Avienus® were part of Brittany or unless it was off thi.s coast that 
the Cassiterides were situated. 


Britain. 

Britain early comes into prominence as a tin-producing country, and f'ornwall, 
together with the west of Devon, was for centuries the most important tin-mining region 
of the world. The Phoenicians are frequently credited with having cruised along the 
coast of Portugal and the shores of the Bay of Biscay and eventually arriving opposite 
Britain, crossing to Cornwall and exploiting, and even po.«siblv finding, tin ore, but there 
is no evidence whatever for anything of the .sort and no Phoenician remains have been 
found in Britain'*. It is not necessary, however, to introduce the Tfiiomiicians in order 
to explain the discovery of British tin ore. .since it seems probable that the Bretons, 
familiar with their own gold and tin ore. may have crossed to their kindred in Cornwall 
and may have found and worked the similar deposits occurring there. 

The date when the Cornish tin ore was first worked is a much disj)uted point, but it 
must have been before the Roman conquest of Britain, since British pre-Roman objects 
have been found in the ancient workings and tin was used for certain British ])re-Roman 
coinage®. Even this, however, does not carry the mining very far back, since coinage 
was only introduced into Britain about 200 b.c. The early ingots and vessels of tin and 
of pewter that have been discovered in Britain, in those cases in which they can be 
dated, mostly belong to the third or fourth cent, a.d.’ The lumps of rough tin found 
by Borlase in Cornwall mixed with bronze celts under conditions stated to indicate the 
Bronze Age® do not seem to be precisely dated and might have belonged to the very 
late Bronze Age. 

The writer of the British Museum Guide to the Antiquities oj tJie Bronze Age states' 
that tin is rarely included with founders’ hoards of rough copper doubtless because the 
powdery ore is of a brown colour and not easily di.stinguishable in the ground. Tin 
ore, however, is not always or even frequently powdery, and it is most improbable that 
the maker of bronze would ever possess it, powdery or otherwise, since so far as is knovn 
the ore was smelted at the mine and it was only the metal that pa.ssed into commerce. 

The principal references by the classical writers to Brithh tin, excluding those to the 
doubtful and possibly mythical Cassiterides, are by Diodorus® (first cent, b.c.), .Julius 
Caesar® (first cent, b.c.) and Strabo*® (first cent. b.c. to first cent. a.d.). 

Diodorus states that the tin ore mixed with earth was dug out of rocky ground, 
which suggests vein ore, though the statement is so very ambiguous that alluvial ore is 
not excluded. Thus in one locality in Cornwall the alluvial gra\ els are beneath some 


1 W. R. Jones, op. dt., 141, 14J. ' C'-pro ph.,. iii. n, U. 

s F. Haverfield, op. cit., 20. ^ '■HFIKi.u. 'ip. lU . 

“ Tin Mining in Spain Past and Pmsent, London, 1S07. (fiiot.-d I.y Hoover 


th-a M'lritiiiiip I, !)0. 

20 , 21 . 

in the traU'lation of 


Agricola’s De Re Metallica, London, 1012, 411. 
' London, 1920, 113. 

De Betlo (rallira, v, 12, 5. 


' Histork'd Lit>nii';i, v, 11. 

r* (Ittnjraphg.^ Ill, li, U. 



104 


A. LUCAS 


50 ft. of sand and silt and in another place they are covered with peat, gravel and sand 
to a depth of 20 ft. ^ 

As may be seen from the references given, the direct evidence for early tin-mining 
in Britain is very scanty and only carries it back to the first cent, b.c., or to the fourth 
cent, if Diodorus’ description of Cornish tin-mining was derived from Pytheas, as may 
have been the case, or to the fifth cent, if the Cassiterides were part of Britain^. 
In the absence of direct evidence, therefore, circumstantial evidence, both for the origin 
and also for the date of tin-mining in Britain, may be considered. The origin will be 
dealt with first. 

Manifestly the ancient bronze objects found in Britain, the earliest of which are 
usually dated to the first half of the second millennium b.c., must either have been im- 
ported or else made locally or both. Let each of these possibilities be considered. 

Importation of bronze might either have been in the form of finished objects, such 
as weapons and ornaments, or of ingots of metal to be fashioned locally into the objects 
desired, or of both. But the mere importation of bronze, whether objects or ingots, 
could not possibly lead to the mining and smelting of tin ore, unless it were accompanied 
by a knowledge of the composition of bronze, its mode of manufacture, the appearance 
and likely location of tin ore and the method of producing the metal from it. This 
knowledge neither invaders, using bronze weapons, nor traders, having bronze to barter, 
would possess, more especially the knowledge of the position of the British tin ore, and 
if the invaders or traders came from Northern Europe to one of the nearest points on the 
British coast, which would be somewhere on the east or south-east, this would be far 
removed from the tin ore region. 

Importation of bronze is often denied on the grounds that the types of objects found 
are local and that moulds for casting bronze objects have been discovered, but both these 
objections are met by the assumption that the bronze imported might have been in the 
ingot form, with the exception of some comparatively few weapons and ornaments in 
the first instance, which would serve as object lessons of the superiority of bronze over 
copper and as an inducement to make it. Local production of bronze must necessarily 
have been preceded by an acquaintance with this alloy and also by tin-mining, unless 
tin were imported into Britain, which is so very improbable that it need not be taken 
into account. Also, before there could be mining the position of the ore deposits and the 
manner of treating the ore to produce the metal would have to be known. 

Neither of the possibilities considered therefore accounts for the origin of tin-mining 
in Britain and the only adequate explanation is that a people familiar with both bronze 
and tin and having a practical knowledge of tin ore, including its appearance and the 
methods of mining and smelting it, came to Britain to prospect either for tin ore or for 
gold, with which tin ore is so frequently associated, and having found tin ore proceeded 
to mine and smelt it. Such a people are not likely to have come from so far afield as 
the East, but rather from Spain-Portugal or France, in both of which countries such 
knowledge is believed to have existed at an earlier date than in Britain, and it has 
already been suggested that Brittany was probably the place of origin of the discoverers 
and first workers of British tin ore. 

The only alternative is to suppose that at first bronze (made by smelting associated 
ores of copper and tin) and later metallic tin were discovered in Britain and almost 
necessarily therefore also in Spain-Portugal and Prance (to mention only the coimtries 

' G. M. Davies, up. 28, 29. 


- Herodotus, in, ll.i. 



NOTES ON THE EAKLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BIUJNZE 


105 


tliat are being considered) much in the same manner as in the East, but quite spon- 
taneously and independently, which, though not impossible, is very improbable and 
contrary to the little evidence that exists. 

As regards the date of the beginning of tin-mining in Britain the following points 
may be considered. Assuming that tin was discovered in the East some time after 
bronze was first accidentally made and that from the East the knowledge of both bronze 
and tin spread indirectly to Britain, then since bronze in the East can be dated to about 
the third millennium s.c. and in the West to the second millennium n.c., and tin in the 
East to the second millennium b.c., it follows that tin-mining in Britain is not likely to 
have begun at the earliest before the end of the second millennium b.c. or the beginning 
of the first millennium b.c. and more probably in the second half of the first millennium. 
The acceptance of an earlier date for the commencement of the Bronze Age in Britain 
is in no way opposed to this, since as already shown, any bronze, whether object.s or 
ingots, brought by invaders or traders would not lead to tin-mining, and it would only 
be after the advent of the prospectors for gold or for tin ore (who if thev came in the 
first instance for tin ore would necessarily be bronze users) that tin-mining would be 
undertaken. 

To account for the trade in tin from the West to the East that certainly existed 
from at least the fifth cent. b.c. there seems only one explanation that is adequate, 
namely that the original supply of ore in the East was proving insufficient, which 
implies that the deposits were small and were becoming exhausted. If such were the 
case search would naturally be made elsewhere, though it is not suggested that tin ore 
was originally found in the West as the result of deliberate search. Another po.^sible (>x- 
planation, however, is that the manufacture of bronze may have shifted from the 
original locality where copper ore and tin ore were found in clo.se proximity to one 
another to some place where copper ore occurred alone. 

It cannot be imagined that the early traders (Phoenicians or others as the case may 
be) knew that in the West there were countries where tin ore was obtainable and that 
they searched until thev found it. At the most it could only have been hoped that such 
countries might exist,'and it is far more likely that the early voyages round the 
Mediterranean, if not simply for loot of any sort, were impelled by the lure of gold and 

were in no wav influenced bv a search for tin. 

Where tin'is mentioned as haffing been obtained from Spain-Portugal or Britain it 
alwavs appears to be the metal and not the ore that is meant, which indicates that the 
ore was smelted where found and this is confirmed by the statements of Diodorus i and 

Plinv ^ 

in' the outline presented of the early history of tin there are several important links 
in the chain missing, which onlv hypothesis can supply, namely, whether it was vein or 
alluvial ore that was first used and, if the former, what caused the change from vein ore 
in the East to alluvial ore in the West. To assume that the ore first employed was 
alluvial raises the difficultv that this kind of ore is not found associated witji copper ore 
and thus the discovery of ‘bronze would be made less accidental and more complex and 
almost necessarily later thah the production of metallic tin. On the other hand to 
assume that vein ore was always employed is to ignore the very definite evidence o the 
early use of alluvial ore in Spain-Portugal, Brittany and Britain. These points will be 

considered when dealing with bronze. 

. , , -T I - \x\iv, -IT. 

Joiirn. "t Kuypt. Arch, xn • 



106 


A. LUCAS 


Bronze. 

The word bronze as used to-day has a wide meaning and includes a number of 
different alloys consisting wholly or largely of copper and tin, but in some cases contain- 
ing also small proportions of other ingredients, among which zinc, phosphorus and 
aluminium may be mentioned. Early bronze, however, was much simpler and consisted 
only of copper and tin with traces of such other ingredients as happened to be present 
in the raw materials employed. At a later date an addition of lead was sometimes made, 
but such an admixture, although of the bronze class, is not a typical or normal bronze. 
At the present day ordinary bronze contains about 9 to 10 per cent, of tin, but ancient 
bronze is more variable, the proportion of tin ranging from about 2 per cent, to about 
16 per cent. 

The date of the discovery of bronze is uncertain. It was probably about the third 
millennium b.c., and although a foreign importation it was used in Egypt about the 
Twelfth Dynasty (2000 b.c. to 1788 B.c.) and even possibly earlier^. 

The simplest assumption to make with regard to the discovery of bronze is that it 
was an accident, and there are only four possible ways in which it could have happened, 
namely, first, by fusing together metallic copper and metallic tin; second, by smelting a 
mixture of copper ore and metallic tin; third, by smelting the naturally-occurring com- 
bined mineral of copper and tin (stannite); and fourth, by smelting either a naturally- 
occurring or artificially-made mixture of copper ore and tin oxide. The first two 
methods are out of the question, unless tin was known before bronze, and the little 
evidence available points to a later knowledge. The third method is most improbable, 
not only because the combined copper-tin mineral, stannite, occurs only in small 'quanti- 
ties and in a few localities and because, if it had ever been employed, it could never 
have led either to the use of the principal and only important ore (cassiterite), for the 
use of which at a later period there is ample proof, or to the production of metallic tin, 
but also because the resulting bronze would have contained a much larger proportion of 
tin and more sulphur than is found in early bronze^. One is thrown back therefore on 
the fourth method, that is the smelting of a naturally-occurring or artificially-made 
mixture of copper ore and tin oxide. Such a mixture, if artificial, need not necessarily 
have been intentional and might have occurred from the accident of the two ores being 
found side by side or at any rate in close proximity to one another, as is the case in 
certain places. 

The matter, however, is not quite so simple as might appear at first sight. Thus the 
tin ore that is associated with copper ore is the vein and not the alluvial form. The use 
of vein ore, as already pointed out, raises the difficulty that this was not the kind of 
ore employed when the western sources of tin appear on the scene and hence an 
explanation is required for the jump from vein ore in the East to alluvial ore in the 
West. The simplest suggestion is that both forms occur in the East and that although 
the vein ore was originally used (at first in the form of an unintentional and unsuspected 
admixture with copper ore), the alluvial ore afterwards became known and from tffis tin 
was prepared and that when the alluvial gravels of Spain-Portugal, Brittany and Corn- 


^ A. Lrc.\s, Ancient Egyptian Materials, 1926, 74—77. 

2 Stannite is smelted on a small scale at the present day in one locality in China and produces a metal 
containing almost equal proportions of copper and tin, as is only- to be expected from its composition. 
O. M. Davies, np. cit.. 86. 


NOTES ON THE EAKLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BRONZE 


107 


wall respectively were being searched for gold the tin mineral was also found and 
recognized. But this only carries the matter part way and there is still a gap between 
the original vein ore and the original alluvial ore. To bridge this gap it is further sug- 
gested that if a mixed copper ore and vein tin ore were used, sooner or later a mixture 
very rich in tin ore would have been smelted, when the resultant alloy instead of being 
the usual bronze containing only a comparatively small proportion of tin would have 
been a white metal consisting chiefly of tin and containing onlv a little copper. One 
specimen of such an alloy of Nineteenth Dynasty date has been found in Egypt, which 
contains 76 per cent, of tin and 16 per cent, of copper’. Thus it would be seen that 
bronze contained a white metal in addition to copper. In some such manner, therefore, 
tin might easily have become known without having been prepared in the pure state. 
If at a later period tin oxide were found during a search for gold, the heavy pebbles 
might have been smelted experimentally, since heating a mineral with charcoal would 
by that time have been a well-known process, and so pure tin might have been dis- 
covered and recognized as the ingredient required for making bronze. 

To assume that the alluvial ore was employed to make bronze in the first instance 
would mean an intentional admixture of copper ore with an extraneous material that 
had no connexion with it and that would have to be obtained from another and possibly 
even a distant locality, which is very unlikely. 

In the writer’s opinion it is extremely probable that vein tin ore was used at first to 
make bronze, originally only in a natural and accidental admixture with copper ore and 
.afterwards intentionally mixed, but not until a very late period as a source of metallic 
tin, and that alluvial tin ore was a later discovery than bronze and was never used 
directly for making this alloy, but only as a .source of tin, after the discovery of which 
and when probably the naturally-as-sociated ores first employed had become exhausted, 
bronze was made, as it is to-day, directly from metallic copper and metallic tin. A.s a 
corollary to the foregoing it would follow that during the first period, when vein tin ore 
was used blindly, the proportion of tin in bronze would be largely a matter of chance, 
though it would generally be small, since where copper ore and tin ore are a.ssf)ciated the 
latter is usually in the smaller quantity. When, however, the nature of the vein tin ore 
was dimly perceived and more particularly after metallic tin was regularly produced from 
alluvia] ore, the tin content of the bronze could be accurately fi.xed. It may be pointed 
out further that the various stages suggested as having occurred in the early history of 
bronze would have required the lapse of .several generations at least between the first 
accidental bronze vfith a chance and varying proportion of tin and the intentional and 
considered alloy containing about 9 or 10 per cent, of tin. 

The problem of the place of origin of bronze may now be discussed, and it resolves 
itself into a search for a country (a) where bronze wa.s known at an early date, probably 
about the third millennium b.c.; (6) where copper ore was being smelted to produce 
copper, a country therefore no longer in the Stone Age. but in the Copper Age: (c) where 
tin oxide occurred in veins side by side with copper ore, this latter probably being 
malachite, since this is the ore that generally occurs on the surface and hence the one 
first employed, and it is the ore most easily reduced to metal; (d) where there was 
early commercial intercourse with Egypt, either direct or indirect, since from Egypt the 
knowledge of copper was derived and to Egypt wa.s passed back part at least of the 

’ Bertheliit, in <'i .1. de iloipui, l.su.'i, 141. 

14--2 



108 


A. LUCAS 


newly-discovered bronze and (e) where the deposits of tin ore were probably very small 
and comparatively soon became practically exhausted. 

The only two countries, so far as is known, where tin ore is found and that also 
fulfil most of the other requirements of the case are Armenia and Persia, in both of 
which tin ore occurs and both of which are very rich in copper ore. In Persia it is 
stated that in the province of Khorasan alone there are between 200 and 300 ancient 
copper workings 1. One objection that might be urged against these countries is that no 
bronze objects of such early date as that required by the hypothesis have been found, but 
it should be remembered that very little systematic archaeological excavation has yet 
been carried out. A further objection in the case of Armenia is the lack of early com- 
mercial intercourse with Egypt, such as took place between Egypt and Persia. All the 
evidence therefore points to Persia as having been the country where bronze was 
discovered. 


• Mocstafa Khan Fateh, op. cit. 


MISCELLANEA 


By PEECY E. XEWBERRY 


I. A Middle Kingdom Mayor of Byblos. 


The two scarab-shaped seals ^ given in Figs. 1 and 2 bear inscrij)tions naming a 
hity-c n Kpn, “Mayor of Byblos,” the famous port of the Lebanon on the coast of 
Syria. From their style I should be inclined to date them to the period immediately 
following the Twelfth Dynasty, but it is possible that they may be as early as the reign 



Fig. I. Scale J . 



Fig. 2. Scale 


of Amenemmes III. It is not known where they were found, but it may well be that 
they came from the cemetery of Byblos, where many monuments of the late Twelfth 
Dynasty have recently been unearthed by French excavators and have come into the 

hands of the antiquity dealers. The writing of the name Kpn differs in the two 

specimens; in the first example it is which is identical with that of the Berlin 

Papyrus 3022 (Gardixee, Xotes oh the Story of Sinuhe, 20); in the second example 

it is which, as far as I am aware, has not been found elsewhere. The writing of the 
name of the official also varies on the two scarabs; in one it is in the other 


II. A new Vizier of the Eleventh Dynasty. 


Dr. Bull published in this Journal (x, 15) a note on a new vizier of the Eleventh 
Dynasty, by name Apa. Another unchronicled vizier of this period was JJ,, Bebi, 
whose figure appears upon a slab in the British Museum (Xo. 724) from the Temple of 
Xebhepetrec Mentuhetep at Der el-Bahri. In Xaville-Hall, The Eleventh Dynasty 
Temple at Deir el Bahari, Part i, 7, this Bebi is described as but on the slab the 

lower half of the ^ -bird is plainly visible. It is probable that earlier in his career Bebi 
filled the office of J,.\, CCb “Chancellor,” for one of that name is referred to on a stela 
of the Mentuhetep period in the Metropohtan Museum of Art, New York (Inventory 
No. 14.2.7). 


“ I acquired thc-je two scarabs in the .spring of 1924, and have given the tirst e.\aniple to the Ashuioleau 
Museum at O.xford and the second to the British Museum 'N'o. ."iTSS.'J in the Egyptian (.’ollection '. 

- An uiiiiitelligibie sign .stands here. 




no 


PERCY E. NEWBERRY 


III. A new Vizier of the Nineteenth Dynasty. 

I noticed last spring in a dealer’s shop in Cairo a shawabti figure, with projecting 
skirt characteristic of the Nineteenth Dynasty, of a “Governor of the city and 

vizier,” named Authy. In a second dealer’s shop in the same city I saw 

another monument of the vizier (his name here was written on which he is 

described as son of the ^ Bastet. 


IV. A Label of the First Dynasty. 

In a paper printed in the Proc. Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1912, 278-289, I noted that the 
wooden and ivory tablets of the First Dynasty 
were really labels for objects that had been placed 
in tombs. One of these, however, did not appar- 
ently conform to the rest, for it was only known 
to bear a year-name of King Wdymw (Den), and 
there was, so far as I then knew, no object-name 
upon it. It was in the MacGregor Collection and 
came up for sale in 1921. I then had an oppor- 
tunity of carefully examining it and found upon 
the back the engraved sign for a pair of sandals 
(see Fig. 3). This ivory label, therefore, was made 
for Wdymw's sandals, which, along with other 
articles of his apparel, must have been placed in 

his tomb. It is now in the British Museum (No. 55586 in the Egyptian Collection). 



Fig. 3. Scale }. 


V. Two Gold Button-Seals. 

The gold button-seal Fig. 4 was bought at Luxor in 1912 by a friend who allowed 
me to make a drawing of it, but very shortly afterwards it was stolen and has not yet 



been traced. At the top are two falcon’s heads back to back with a ring for suspension 
between them. On the base are engraved a bee or hornet, a fly, a lizard, and a 
tortoise (?). This gold button-seal closely resembles one that was in the Hilton-Price 
Collection and was given to me by the late Lord Carnarvon, except that the design on 
the base consists of four Set-animals arranged in pairs facing one another (Fig. 5). 



MISCELLANEA 


111 


VI. An Official of King Horemheb. 

The British Museum Ostracon No. 5624, recently published by Dr. Blackman in this 
Journal (xii, 177), mentions under the date Year vii of King Zeserkheperrei'-Horemheb, 
a major-domo of Ne named Tuthmosis. This official appears again in a 

hieratic inscription written on the right-hand wall of the lower rectangular chamber of 
the tomb of Tuthmosis IV in the Biban el-Muluk at Thebes. The latter inscription is 
dated in the third month of the summer season of the Year viii of Horemheb, and 
records the order of the king that the Overseer of the Works in the Place of^Jiternity 
{i.e., the Necropolis) May and his assistant the Steward of Thebes ~ - 1" i i ) 

Tuthmosis ” renew the burial of King Tuthmosis I\ . This inscription has been pub- 
lished by me in Carter-Newberry, The Tomb of Thoiitmosix IV {Theodore Davis series), 
1904, xxxiii-xxxiv. 

VII. The High Priest Dhutihetep. 

In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, there is a very fine lapis lazuli 
seal (see Fig. 6) of the High Priest of Thoth named Dhutihetep. This Dhutihetep is 
certainly the same person whose famous tomb at El-Bersheh was published by me in 
El Bersheh, Part i. 



L12 


SOME POTSHERDS FROM KASSALA 

By J. W. CEOWFOOT 
With Plate xiii. 

The town of Kassala lies a mile or two west of the many-domed mountain mass from 
which it takes its name, but the only antiquities which have been found in the neigh- 
bourhood are on the other side of the moimtain at the north-east end. Here there is a 
secluded recess which is littered with great quantities of ancient, rmpainted, handmade 
potsherds. The place is almost completely encircled by hills, but at the northern end a 
camel track leads to it along a gully, and motors can approach it from the south-east, 
past a few tombs of unknown date and a little stretch of cultivable land. The site 
covers some acres of broken ground, seamed with deep-cut watercourses, and the pottery 
is particularly abundant on the higher ridges and close to the boulders of rock which 
have fallen from the mountain. No traces of building are visible and there is no sign of 
the artificial accumulation which would result from prolonged occupation, but the 
abundance of the pottery and the nearness of good, cultivable land indicate that the 
place was occupied for a few generations at least by sedentary folk, and I picked up a 
few stone grinders and pounders like those which have been found on the sites of other 
old settlements in the Sudan. The Hallenga who are regarded as the aborigines of 
Kassala call the spot the place of Daqlianus, mahal Daqlianus, but they have no traditions 
about it of which I could learn. 

A number of potsherds which I brought from the site in 1917 are now in the Gordon 
College museum: those which are published in this paper were collected in 1926 and are 
now in the Ashmolean at Oxford. 

These potsherds fall into two main groups, a small group which shows foreign influ- 
ence, and a much larger group which is characteristically African in material, shape and 
decoration. I turn to the smaller group first. 

Group I. PI. xiii. Nos. a-g. 

The seven pieces shown are all made of the same material, an impure clay containing 
many particles of quartz. In fracture the clay is a slaty grey colour in the centre and 
a light brick pink on the two faces except where it has been accidentally darkened in 
the baking. 

One piece, no. h, comes from a small bowl, no. / comes from a large, heavy, shallow 
dish, and all the others from large jars. All the pots were made by hand, not thrown 
upon a wheel. 

Before other decorations were added, all the vessels seem to have been scored with 
a blunt-toothed comb both inside and outside: most of the combings run horizontally, 
and they constitute a distinctive characteristic of the ware. Other decorative features 
are as follows: 

No. a has a coarse collar below the top and this collar is decorated with a lattice 
pattern which looks as if it had been cut with a metal blade. The same lattice pattern 








SOME POTSHERDS FROM KASSALA 


1 1;3 

recurs twice on no. /, on the border on the outside of the di.sh and on the llattened loj) 
of the rim, which is not shown in the illustration. 

Nos. b, c and e. The tops of these jars were pinched between the thumb and finger 
and dented so as to form a wavy edge. 

No. d. The knob will be observed. 

No. g had a bulging rim which is almost circular in section and is decorated with a 
chevron or herring-bone pattern. 

In many respects this ware is foreign to other East African wares, but one can hardlv 
think that large coarse vessels of this kind were carried from a distance to Kassala. and 
the material of which they are made looks like a local product. It seems probable that 
they were made on the spot in a factory directed bv people familiar with the appear- 
ance of similar productions elsewhere and getting this appearance imitated as best thev 
could in local clay and hand technique. 

Group II. PI. .xiii. Nos. l-dH. 

The potsherds of this group are much more varied than those of the first, but tioiu! 
of them presents features which are foreign to East African traditions. 

The material of these pieces varies considerably; in some the clay is very coarse and 
contains large particles of quartz, in others it has been carefully ground or sifted. It 
varies also in colour: along a fractured edge some pieces show black or grey, others 
brown, pinkish or yellow, and in -many the colour in the centre is different from that 
near either face. These differences will not surpri.se anyone familiar with African 
ceramics, ancient or modern. The varieties in colour and facies come j)artly from the 
varying proportions of organic matter which individual potters mixed with their clay, 
partly from different ways of preparing the clay itself, and partly from differences in the 
baking caused by the varying degree of heat in the fire, the length of time it burned and 
the position of the pots in the kiln. The relative uniformity of Group I suggested that 
we were dealing with the products of a single, more or less regulated, workshop: the 
variety in Group II shows that these pieces are the work of a number of different 
potters, some much more careful than others. 

Nos. 1 to 10 come from wide-mouthed bowls with plain moulded rims. Below the 
rim the body of the bowls was decorated with a series of bold grooves: on nos. 3, 4 and 
6 the main grooves run perpendicular to the rim, on nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 they are 
slanting, on no. 9 a series of horizontal lines has been crossed by a perpendicular serk's, 
on no. 10 the grooves form a lattice. This use of deep grooves is to be noted as a 
favourite trick of the Ka.ssala potters. A second characteristic trait is the decorative use 
of two colours: the inner face of all the pieces except no. 8 is, like the rims, black and 
wet-smoothed or pebble-polished: nos. 2 and 7 are black on both sides, no. 8 reddish on 
both sides, but all the others are a dull brown or reddish colour on the outer face below 
the black rim. In some pieces the black colour forms a.s it were a mere skin on a 
brownish paste, and on these it must have been produced either by a smear before 
burning or by the application of some organic matter immediately after the burning 
while the pots were still red-hot: the black colour on the all-black jtots may have been 
produced by smothering the kiln — all three methods being in use to-day in various parts 
of the Sudan. One or two pieces, not shown, were decorated with impressed lines filled 
with red or white colouring matter. 

No. 11 comes from a small bowl of much finer workmanship. The pa.ste is grey, the 
inner face and the part outside above the band of impressed ornament are black, the part 

Journ. of Egypt. Aivli. xiv. 





114 


J. W. CROWFOOT 


below this band is a crimson red. The red on this sherd and on the top edges of nos. 20 
and 26 has been produced, I think, by a ferric smear: the black on nos. 11 and 13 has 
a metallic sheen and leaves a grey smudge when rubbed with a handkerchief, both 
characteristics of pottery which has been treated with some sort of blacklead. On no. 16 
the usual colour arrangement has been reversed, the band with impressed triangles being 
reddish and the part below it black. Nos. 27 and 28 are interesting because they have 
been decorated with a blunt -toothed rocker, a method of decoration which has a long 
history in the Nile valley. 

Do these fragments of pottery form a new archaeological group or can they be 
related to any of the fabrics known in the cultural areas which lie nearest to Kassala, 
namely, the realm of Axum which is some 200 miles to the south-east, or the Nile valley 
which is even further away to the west ? 

The German expedition to Axum found a quantity of potsherds, and others have 
been found by the Italian archaeologists who have explored various sites in Eritrea: 
superficial resemblances between the Kassala ware and some from the Eritrean Rore 
published by 11. Conti-Rossini {Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, xxxi, 1923) led me 
to submit a series of these potsherds to him. M. Conti-Rossini was kind enough to 
examine them and to give me his considered opinion. The coarse red pottery in Group I, 
he tells me, resembles a class of Graeco-Roman origin which is found in Ethiopian ruins 
of the Axum period, for example, at Adulis which was excavated by M. Paribeni, who 
has also kindly examined the Kassala ware. Of the pottery in Group II M. Conti-Rossini 
speaks with more hesitation, writing as follows of the characteristic pieces included in' 
Fig. 2, nos. 1 to 10: “C’est la veritable poterie de Cassala: c’est elle qui presente les 
difficultes plus sensibles. Apres y avoir longuement reflechi, j’y vois une evolution locale 
d’un type ethiopien.” Zahn’s account of the pottery found at Axum corroborates this 
cautious judgement: he describes the various wares at Axum in terms which are verbally 
applicable to our group {Deutsche AJcsum-Expedition, Berlin, 1913, ii, 199, 201, 205 ff.) 
and publishes two fragments ‘Anit wagrechten kraftigen Rippen"’ and a third which is 
red on the outside and brown on the inner face (nos. 70, 71 and 79). The material is 
scanty but, so far as it goes, it justifies M. Conti-Rossini in summing up the typical 
Kassala ware as “une variete, une elaboration de types d’Aksoum.” 

There are also parallels on the Nubian side which must not be overlooked. In the 
first place. Kassala Group II has certain distinctive characteristics in common with a whole 
series of ancient and modern Nilotic fabrics: secondly, one or two potsherds have been 
found in Nubia which are almost identical in decoration with the Kassala pieces. 

Among the general characteristics it will be enough to note the following: 

(а) The absence of handles, spouts and knobs for suspension. This is a feature of 
early Nubian ware and, with some qualifications, of predynastic Egyptian pottery, and 
is in marked contrast to the early appearance of spouts and handles in the Mediterranean. 
It is still characteristic of uncontaminated East African ware (Stuhljianx, Handwerh 
und Industrie in Ostafrica, Hamburg, 1910, 26). 

(б) The decorative use of two colours on the same pot, black on the rim and the 
inside, red on the lower part of the outside, which is characteristic of early Egypt and 
of Nubia from the Middle Kingdom to the Meroitic age. The use of blacklead to give a 
metallic sheen is found to-day in the Bahr el-Ghazal {Sudan Notes and Records, viii, 
1925, 135) and in the Twelfth Dynasty at Kerma (Reisnee, Kerma, ii, 329). 

(c) The use of the rocker. Reisner {op. cit., 381) writes that this occurs “in the 



SO^[E POTSHERDS FROM KASSALA Ilf) 

Kubian C-group and in all subsequent periods in Ethiopia at present known to Tue down 
to the late Meroitic period”: in the present dav it has survived in the Balir el-Ghazi'd 
province and in the south of the Nuba Mountains. 

These are general characteristics, and thev are onlv significant because they are 
found in an area which it is reasonable on general grounds to connect with Kassahi. The 
closer parallels to which I referred come from sites in Lower Nubia: at Aniba frag?nent.s 
decorated with bold grooves like the Kassala ware were found by Maciver (Arpihi, 1909. 
PL x), and at Faras one piece which might have come from Kassala was found by 
Griffith (Liverpool Annals, viii, 1921, PI. xii, no. 21). Tlu' latter i)iece was found. 
Professor Griffith tells me, in the filling of a pit of a f'-group grave, and he descrilx's it in 
the text as “an example of dotnestic ware used for cooking which has strayed into the 
cemetery and may be later.” Maclver’s finds apparently belong to the Eight('enth 
Dynasty. The band ornaments on the smaller sherd.s from Kassala. again, may be 
compared with another Faras fragment (op. cit.. xiii, PI. xvii, no. .o) and might be 
regarded as degenerate survivals of the borders round the beautiful hlack-topp(>d howls 
from the Nubian cemeterv at Kerma. On the other hand it must be admitti'd that the 
common handmade wares in Lower Nubia, whether of the Meroitic or earlier ])eriod'. do 
not furnish an exact parallel to the Kassala group. 

The evidence quoted in the last paragraphs .suggests that the relationship between 
Kassala and Nubia is very similar to the relationship between Kassala and Axum. and 
it seems to me that a parallel to these relations can be found in the Southern Sudan 
to-day: here there are several local varieties of handmade wari' with marked character- 
istics which one can distinguish at a glance when one compare.s them together, but if 
one compares the whole group with the products of some distant area, such as West 
Africa or the Malav peninsula, where the processes of production may be much the 'ame, 
it is obvious that the local varieties in the Sudan should be classified as members of 
a single familv. It is suggested that it will be useful to classify the ancient fabrics nf 
North-East Africa in the same way: Kassala ware will then be designated as a new local 
varietv of a large family which includes the indigenous .Vxumite ware, several Nubian 
branches and some of the earliest Egyptian fabrics. 

The approximate date of the Ka«sala fragments is indicated by the Graeco-Poman 
or Mediterranean characteristics of Kassala Group I. This indication is further cf)r- 
roborated by the complete absence at Kassala of any fragments recalling the charac- 
teristic shapes and decorations which came into vogue at i\Ierf)e and elsewhere in the 
Sudan after the Meroitic period proper. This post-Meroitic ware is best seen in the 
numerous narrow-necked globular beer-jars decorated with textile impressions which have 
been found on various late sites and are still made over a wide area, including not mdy 
the Central Sudan but Kordofan. Dongola and Kassala itself (Journal, xiii. 149-1.50. and 
PI. xxxii). On the basis just proposed this post-Meroitic ware will be classified as yet 
another variety of the great North-Ea.st African family. 

The date suggested is consistent also with alt we know or can conjecture about this 
area from written sources. Procopius (Dp BpUo Persipo.i. 19, .59 .v (juoted by Woolley and 
ilaciver, Karunog. Text 102) says that it was a journey of thirty days for a light traveller 
(eitohop dvr pi) from Axum to the Roman frontier at AsWiin. and the direct road would 
naturally pass through Kassala. The scanty historical references to the Eastern Sudan 
are mainlv concerned with raids of Blemmye.s or Axumites. but the existence of regular 
communications implied by Procopius, the relations which the Blemmves entertained with 
Palmvra befort' the time of Diocletian, and the subsequent Byzantine veneer which they 

1 e 



116 


J. W. CEOWFOOT 


acquired, prove that the desert tribes were not whoUy refractory to culture. It is not 
surprising therefore to find that about this time there was a settled community at 
Kassala cultivating the ground and subject, at least indirectly, to Mediterranean trade 
influences. Graeco-Roman influences in the Nile valley are obvious in the Romano-Nubian 
pottery: the foreign influences which reached Kassala, though from the same original 
source, were different because they had come through Axum instead of Egypt. The 
modern name of the site appears to point to the same culture complex but it would be 
rash to base any argument upon it : the dwellers in the Nile valley corrupted Ptolemaios 
into Botlus, and Daqlianus is more likely to be a corruption of Diocletianus than of some 
otherwise unknown name like Decilianus, but it would be hazardous to see in the name 
a reminiscence of the historical Diocletian in spite of his connexion with the Blemmyes. 
The name of Diocletian survived for a long time in Egypt and in the countries under 
Egyptian ecclesiastical influence because the Coptic era dates from his accession, and it 
seems to me likely that, being used in this connexion, it became a generic name for any 
place or person of remote antiquity among the Hallenga, some of whom may have been 
still Christian within the last century or two, like several tribes across the Eritrean 
frontier. 

We may sum up the conclusions of this paper as follows: 

In the early centuries of our era there was a settled community at Kassala which 
was in touch certainly with Axum and probably with the Nile valley: the pottery used 
by this community was made on the spot and decorated with tools and by processes 
which are familiar to us in several other places in this part of Africa. There is no 
evidence to show whether these people called themselves Blemmyes or Bega or by some 
other name. 

Our knowledge of the past history of this area is so slight that even these meagre 
facts are welcome. 




Plate XIV 



Sculptured slab No. 15,000 in the Berlin Museum. 



117 


NOTE ON THE SCULPTURED SLAB No. 15000 
IN THE BERLIN MUSEUM 

By PERCY E. XEWBERRY 
With Plate xiv. 

In PL xiv is given a photographic reproduction of a sniall sculptured liitiestone slab, 
No. 15000 in the Berlin Museum. This has been published by Bissing-Briickniann in 
their Denhndler, Taf. 83, and also by Schaefer- Andrae in their Die Kutist <Ies Alien 
Orients, Berlin, 1925, 362. The scene upon it is said to represent “Aiinmophis lY mit 
seiner Gemahlin im Garten,” but the female figure is certainly not Nefertiti. nor do 
I think that the male figure represents Amenophis lY. Both figures are shown with the 
royal uraeus upon the forehead, so it is clear that we have here a king and a queen. 
That they belong to the El-‘Amarnah period is. of course, certain, but do they repre- 
sent Semenkhkaref and Merytaten, or Tutcankhaten and Ankhsenpaten 1 The attitude 
of the young king wearily leaning upon a stafi placed under his right arm-pit gives one 
the impression that he must have been a delicate youth, and this is further suggested 
by the little queen holding out to him a lotus bud and two mandrake fruits L The 
latter are very significant, for they are the well-known “love apples” that, in the Near 
East, are generally believed to have stimulating and exhilarating qualities. This belief 
is very ancient, for it is indicated in the passage about Rebecca in Genesis xxx, 14 ff., 
and even at the beginning of the last century it is recorded- that young Athenians wore 
accustomed to wear about their persons small pieces of the roots of the mandrake 
enclosed in little bags as amulets for amatory reasons. I am inclined to think that this 
little scene represents Semenkhkarec and Merytaten rather than Tutrankhaten and 
Ankhsenpaten, for the youthful king’s features are not like those of Tutrankhaten. 

1 Mandrake fruits have been found in the touil> of Tutr.inkli.nuun : .see my p.iiier mi “Tlie Flura! 
Wreaths” in Carter, The Tonih of Tat-'nikh-unxeii. ii, 192 ft. 

^ SlfexHORP, Flora (jraera, in, KJ. 



118 


FIVE LEASES THE PRINCETON COLLECTION 

By H. B. van HOESEN and A. C. JOHNSON 

1 . Lease of Palm Grove. 

AM 8951. 

AvprjXi'a ' AiJLfiayvdpiov Bid N€i«a[i’o]^o[9. . .] 

(j)L\py. TJapd '\iTrip.d')^ov K.oTTdpa /i[i7Tpo?] 0et&)[i’iSo?(?)] 

Kal %vpov Aojyivov ^ovXopLeda p^taOwaacrdal^i] 
irapd (70V (j)oiviKMi’a Xeyofievpv . . .ov J’r? TQV 
5 napirov (eTov<;) 6' eKTTiTTTOj'TO? ej? to (ero?) i rpy 
iveaTOTO<; €TOV<i dpyvplov Spaxp,MV 
eKUTOv e^i'jKOVTa Kal Tayrj(; <j)olviKO<i 
fiovo^vKov upTa^'ijv p[,av yfj,v(70v Kal 
KdWvvOpa Svo Kal KaXdria i twv epyaiv 
lo irdvrav avreov tt/oo? ?;//.«? tou? p,ia6oaa- 
p.evov<i TTOTicrpov re Kal 7rep(')(op,arLafipy 
[/eajt o’X^ia^; Kal KaTa<nra<TpbOv{<i) Kal TrapaSd)- 
[(7opi,ev Ka6d)<^ Kal 17 /iet?] 7ra/37/\7;<^a[/x6j/] iay 
[(j)alvr]Tai piaddcracrOa]!. (2nd hand) '^Trip.aj^o’i] 

15 [^6/Lii(T0&)/ia(. (3rd hand) 2]u/3o? /u.6/a[to’0&)yaai] 

[tu? ’rrpoK€irac\. 

Aurelia Ammonnrion acting through her agent Nicanor son of ...fhilus. From Epimachiis, 
son of Kottaras and Theonisfl). and Syrus, son of Longinus. IFe wish to lease from you the 

palm grove called from the harvest of the current year, which is the ninth, extending into 

the tenth year, the rent being 160 drachmae, one and a half artabae of dates on single stems, two 
hunches, and five basJcets. We, the lessees, shall undertahe all the worh of irrigating, ditching, 
pollinating, and picking and we shall hand hack the grove in the same condition as ive received 
it. if the lease is granted. (Here follow the signatures of the lessees. Epimachus and Syrus.) 

This papyrus measures 12 x 13 cm. and is practically complete. The writing for six 
lines on the upper right-hand corner is very faint. The document may be dated on 
palaeographical grounds in the early part of the third century. Since the ninth year of an 
emperor’s reign is specified, it must fall either in the time of Septimius Severus or 
Alexander Severus, probably the latter — i.e.. 230. The spelling and syntax are equally bad. 

Other leases of palm groves are P. Hamb. 5; P. Ryl. 172; B.G.U. 591, 862; C.P.R. 45, 
P. Oxy. 1632; P. Cairo Byz. 67100; Sammelbiich, 5126. Leases which include palm trees 
are B.G.U. 603, 604, 900, 1118; P. Flor. 369: P. Hamb. 68; P.S.I. 33. 296; P. Oxy. 639, 
1631; P. Cairo Hasp. 67104, 67170; P. Bond. 1695. 1769; Sammelbiich, 4483; P. Cornell, 
10, 16. 

1. The appearance of women in four out of five of the leases published here is interest- 
ing as evidence of the legal status of women in Egypt and the capacity of legal action 
which they enjoy'ed. 



FIVE LEASES IN THE PRINCETON COLLECTION 


11 ‘J 


4. The uaiue of the grove contained not more than five letters. 

5. cTtTTtTTToi'To? kt\. See P. llduth. 5. introduction. 

6. Sc. (popov. The same rental is found in B.fi.V. do;}, (idl. 

7. ra'yi] as a measure is found in B/l.C. Ills, 1120. 

9. For KaXaria read K<i\d 0 La. 

12. On the culture of the date palm in Egypt see Sch.\'h;j!ki,. Dh' La inJiriiischaff im hell. 
Agijpten. 294 ff. 

13. idp fiiaOmaaaOai. This formula is common in leases until ahoiit the 

middle of the third century, cf. Bkroer in Zcitschi. far rer<il. lii'ehlsii-p.seaxchaft, .v.vi.x. 
(1913), 320 ff. 

15. The signature of the lessee appears in leases of jialm groves or gardens only in 
B.G.U. 900; C.P.R. 45; P.S.I. 33, 290; P. O.uj. 1031: Banniielhaeh. 5120. The lessor or 
agent signs in P. Rgl. 172: B.G.U. 603. 

2. Lease of House. 

Dep. 7549. 

'EalaRooaev AvprjXta Arjfx'qrpov'i Aio~ 
nefftoi/[[?]] Tov Ka'i 'HpaKXiavov Sia rov 
d[n]Spo 9 AvpgXiov Eepgvov -apaTrioyvo^ 
diTO T?;s' \ap.7rpd<; [’Oj^vpvyxtarda’ Tr6\e(o<t 
5 TOW e’f ((ftjBela'i iepoveiKoiv .-XupiKXow) 

’AxtXXec 'Epulov pr}Tp6<; TaSiO'/dros' (Itto 
Tj}9 avTtj'i TToXece? eV[( xpoi']oi' eri/ Tpta 

UTTQ a TOV €^^9 p,r]i'6^ (^0)0 TOV iaiovTOi; 

€Tgy^ iv Ti) avTrj iroXei i-rr dprfohov Av- 
10 KLOJV Uapep.tSpXrj'i oLciqy Ka\ avXgv avv 
[;;^p?;(rrj;pto (9 rracri vtX.] 

Aurelia Demetraux, daagit/cr of Diuni/xlux a'lm ix alxu l.uoa.-n ax Jlnarhaaax. through her 
huxband A'-reliux Serenas. Sarapion'x son. ciliuot of the /lla.sirioas ciig of (Jj qrht/ndnii and 
victor in the sacred gamex as ephebe. has leased to Aurehux Aehillc-. xoa if Ileranas and 
Tadiogas of the saute citg her hou.xe and court inth all f><rnixhini/x m the iiaarter of the £(/ciu/( 
barracks of the satne citg for a period of three gears from the frxt oj m it mouth, which m 
Thoth, of the new gear. 

This fragment measures 7‘ti ' lU'5 cm. Ihe latter jiart of tlm document is lost. It 
probably dates from the first half of the third century ami is later than the edict of 
Caracalla as the names Aurelii imply. 

1. The introductory formula of the so-called protocol lease is peculiar to ( l.xyrhynchus. 

5. For victors at the sacred game.s for ephebes cf. t).ig. lOOi. 170:}. ITOo. Endow- 
ments tor ephebic contests are recorded in P. t)xg. 7n.5 (.\.i). 2o(*-2u2), and we find mention 
of such games as late as .\.d. 324 (P. Ojg. 12). Special privileges of immunity seem to 
have been granted to the successful conte-itants. Cf. /'. /.o/o/. vol. 2, p. 215; vol. 3, 
pp. 145. 105; S.vx Nicolo. Acg>fptixchex Verrinxire.xen. Of; Class. Rev. vn. (1M93). 476. 
On ephebic games see \\ ilckex. Grunihage. 143 ff. 

9-10. Cf. Rink. Strasxen- and Viertelnamen van 0.i grhgni has, 39 ll. 



120 


H. B. VAN HOESEN and A. U. JOHNSON 


3. Lease of Farm. 

AM 8946. 

[’E/ito']0&)O'€y AvprjXla ' A/M/jil^iovdpcov] 

[( 7 )€p]Swpou p7][Tpo<;^ nem/x[oOTo>; avro t)}?] 

XapTrpd<; Kal Xap,TrpoTa[Tr]<; 'O^vpvy^iTwvJ 
TToXea}!; AvprjXi'o) 'lov[aT(o /iTjrpo?] 

; SaTppi'7;?(?) ttTTo Tt;? a[vT^? TToXeci)?] 

[ei]? 6T?; 8uo dirg tov [eVeffTwro? tVou?] 

[tp]p inrdp)(pvaav avrfi •7r[epl, umprjv^ 

'H[p]a/tXetpp dpovpgv p.\^iav rj oca? eav cocri.] 

[cK 7]e[<i>]p‘eTpia9 airelpai Kal ^uXa-] 

lo [/xj}o'a(] pE edv aiptjTai [7]e7'eiTt eKipop^i^gy 
\_(i\Trg\r^u.KTov Kar eTO<i Kpidtpi apja^Siv 
deicg tiKivSvvov Trat/To? kiv^vvov 
TMV T)}? 7% Kar' eTO‘i BijpoatoJv dvrutv 
rrpos rrjv peptaOcoKOivlav (sic) Kvpievovaay 
1 5 rruvratv Kaprruiv em? rrjv Kptdrjv 
urrgXd^g. /3e^?at<u/ie) pf Be rijt; 
pLo-ddaeciii diroBoroy rljv KpiOyv 
TO) IlaOi’t p,r}v\ veay Kadapdv pierpco 
SeKarq) di^uTrepdercoi 'yivgpeyp’i gyrfj 

20 T))^ TTpa^eco? &)9 Kad/jKei. Kvpia 
>) [p/o-J^wcn? Trepl ?;? iirepcoTrjdelt; 

6 p\_€]pt(T6(opePo<i oopoXojrjaev. 

("Etoi/?) /3 AvroKparopot; Kaiaapoi Eatou 
OvaXepiov ALOKXrjriavov Eva"e,8pi;9 
2 ~ Evrv)f^ 0 V'i —e^acrrov Tv/3( B' 

Avp(>jXio<;) ’Iou<rTo<? pep,i(r6a)p,ai ryv 

Kal drroBdxrw rgv KpeiOgv to? rrpoKeirai 

Kg\ eVepcoTp^eif Mp.oXoyr/a'a. Aup( 7 /Xt 09 ) Aio- 

[I'jiicrtosf eyp(a-^a) vrrep avri}^ p.i] eiSgueiai (sic) ypdp,(para). 

An idin A)nnioii(irw)K daughter of Theodorus whose mother is Peunmous ('), u resident of 
the illustrioim and most illustrious citg (f Oxgrhguchus, has leased to Aurelius Justus whose 
tiKithrr Satorue (A- of the same citg one aroura. or whatever the measurement mag be bg 
siirvcg. belonging to het in the > illage Heracleion ('') for the term of two gears from the 'present 
gear with the right to cultivafe and harvest whatever crops he chooses. The regular gearlg rental 
shall be ten artabae of barleg free from all rish, while the annual public tares shall fall to the 
lessor who shall have ownership of all the crops until she receives the rental. If the lease is 
guaranteed . the lessee shall pag over new clean barleg in the mo)dh Pauni according lo the ten- 
measure standard without delag: and the lessor shall have the right of eraction according to law. 
This lease is valid. The lessee on being formaUg interrogated agreed. Bated the fourth of Tubi 
in the second gear of the reign of Imperator Caesar Gaius Valerius Diocletianus Pius Felix 
Augustus. 

1. Aurelius Justus, have leased the land and I will pag the rent in barleg as agreed, and on 
bong formallg interrogated I have con.sented. I , Aurelius Diongsius wrote this agreement or 
behalf (f the lessor us she is illiterate. 



121 


FIVE LEASES IN THE PRINCETON COLLECTION 

Measurements: 13x10 cm. The document is nearly complete excejjt for the loss of the 

right-hand portion of lines 1-9. In the upper left-hand corner some of the letters are so 
faint that our reading is far from certain. Dated in the second year of Diocletian, a.d. 28.5. 

1. We have here the Oxyrhynchus protocol form of lease in full, ending with 
signature, and repetition of the covenant clause of the lease. 

2, 5. Ileea/xoOTo?, laropvy'i. These names are unknown, but masculine variants 

and Saropeoi? are quoted by Preisigke, Xnmpnbuch. 

8 . The name of the village is highly problematical, as the traces of the letters are 
almost completely washed out. 

19. The fierpov SeKci/ierpov con.sisted of ten measures, each of four chornierx. This 
measure is rare in Roman times though known to metrologists. f'f. P. ().,!/. 9 rrrxn (p. 77 ). 
85: P. Fay. 101; P. Amh. 147. also Hultsch, Arrhir. 2 . 292 If. 

4. Lease of Rooms. 

Dep. 7518. 

[Tm helvi Tov Beivo<i Ka'i tm tov heivo'i ktX.] 

na^[a A]vprj'\oo[v IlauXou tov Seivo<; airo t!}'; \apL{Trpa<;) Ka'i Xa/xiirpOTaTr)^)] 

['0^vpvyxi]Ta)v 7rdX€&)[?. 'E^onertfo^ iiriSexoiiai /Mtaduio-aaBai] 

[htto a' TOV 0 cd[d tov eveaTmro'i erou'?] 

5 [n]?"? rwe vTrapxovTOiv yp^v] ty t[>} avT?) iroXei eV’ ap<p6Sov] 

^eicqTr)^ citto oXoKXypov [oJA/a? [ val] 

TO vTTepSiov Kttl reXeaiv \ypZ]v virep A'o((<:[(oo] Kay 
eVo? [sKacTTOv] dpyvplov cr^’ ('nrep yd[€]/3a<oi/- 

pLevy’i pot, Tt]<; eiriSoxy^ 'e7rai’djKe<; dvoSaxxo fsic) 
lo TO Kar i'Tov ivuiKiov Si i^ap/jvov to ypicrv ^pw/iei’o? 

[toJZ? piaBoiTicTL (sic) poi tottoi^ iirl tov xpovov d.KutXvTai'; 

[p,€0’] ov TrapaSodcra) utt'o Kovpiwv Ka'i Sicrr)<; Trdayt; kuI da- 
[TTeJp rrapaXa^w dvpa^ Ka'i KXei<; y oTroTioropai ov idv py 
[rraplaSd) Tyv d^iav Tipyv yevopevy^ vpiv 
15 [irpd^eco?] Trapd t€ epov to? KaOyKi. Knpia y 
yal €'y[e]p(aT 7 ; 0 eA wpoXoyyaa. 

'TTroreia? <I>X 

t5)v XapirpoTUTUsv e7rd[pytue] 0a)d. . 

(2nd hand) \vpyXio<; FlaOXos' peplaBiopai 
[tottoJo? oiVia[ 9 ] yat dtroSaxTO) jy 

[^ivoi^KlOV TTpOKlTai Kai 

[eTrep^cprydel^ mpoXoyyaa. 

From Aurelius Paulus . . .of the illustrious and most illustrious city of Oxyrhyucku.x. I volun- 
tarily undertake to rent from the first of Thoth of the present year {certain rooms) and the upper 
room of the property belonging to yon in the Tenth irard of the aforesaid city, and to pay yon 
for rent 260 siher drachmae a year: which rental, if the lease is guaranteed. I shall pay in semi- 
annual instalments, enjoying the use of the leased rooms withou' hindram e for the period. On the 
expiry of the lease I shall restore the property clear <f dang and all filth, and with it all the 
doors and leys whvh 1 ■•^hall hare received: or el-e. I shall pay the just price for whatcer I do 
not return. The right of exaction from me remains iciik you «s Is proper. The undertaking is 
lalid and on formal question, I have agreed. In the consulship of Fla'ius mo.st illus- 

trious prefects. The first{i) of Thoth. 

Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


16 



122 


H. B. VAN HOESEN axd A. C. JOHNSON 


1, Atireli'is Pa-dus, have rented the rooms and I will pay the rent as specified. On interro- 
gation 1 have agreed. 

Measurements; 'iS'S ,'11 cm. Mutilated at top and upper right-hand corner. The 
writing is faint and in a rather difficult hand of the late third or early fourth century. 

3. M e restore iiriSexogat rather than j3ov\o/j.ai because of the use of iirihoxg in lines 
9 and 15. This formula is characteristic of Oxyrhynchus, cf. Bergeb, op. cit., 349; 
M'azyxski, Die Bodenpaehl. 16. 

8. House rents are usually stated in silver drachmae. The depreciation of the coinage 
is evident if we compare this rental with that of 60 drachmae asked in a.d. 183 (P. O.ry. 
1127) and with the talents or myriads of drachmae named in the leases of the fifth century, 
cf. Berger, op. cit.. 37811. 

1<. Possibly A)\avLov or A>\aovia)v. 

18. T 0 )v Xa/jLTTpoTarrov eirdpxojv ktX. [This seems to me. from a photograph sent me, 
almost certain, though the hand is verv cursive. H. 1. B.] 

5. Lease of Furnished House. 

Dep. 7546. 

Mera rrjv inrareiav A>X(aovi(ov) Eu^aipiou 
Kai —vaypLov T&y X[a]/i(7rpoTrtTa)i') ’E7rei<^ ig 
4>\[a]oi/ico K.pgaireivai oVo TTpanrocriLraiv) 

7€[o]u;('o0i'Ti €7r[l T]r/? Xafi(TTpds) Kal XapiirpoTaTg^) TrAefca?) 

- 7rap[a] .XvpgXlas Noci'a? \KpTepLihd)pp\y\ 
niro Tri<; avTg^ TroXeco?. 'E«:ou<Tt<o? 
eTTiSexopai pi<r6('o<raa6ai diro a 
TOO pgyos Metrop^ tou 
evearioTOS (eTovs) te j' la ivhiKiriasvo^) 

10 OTTO T&ic vTTapxovrwv troi ev rPj 
avri) TToXei err' gp<p6Sov Apopov 
0of/ptSo? oXoxXgpov oiKLav 
avv Xpga-T7j plots irdcri ivoiKLov 
KUT CTOs’ dpyvplov hgvapiav pv- 
i,= p[t]a? reTpaKiaxiXias irevTaKoalas 
dairep diroSwcrco St' e^aptj- 
voy TO ijpiay Kal 07 r[ 6 ]Tai' 

^[ouX]^d€t[7;? 7rap]a8coo'[&) aoi rg^v av- 
T[gv otjviai/ [Ka^dapav [utcJo KOTTpimfi) 

:o A:[ai OiJcrj;? 7 r[«cr ];;9 di[cr 7 rep TrapJciXt^a, 

K[up]i'a g p,i[cr]d(o<7i9 [/ca]i €Trep{o)Tg9els) 
dopoXoyigaa) 


±XypgXLa iSovva ’AprepiScdpov 
peptaOwpat rgv otKtav Kal tirro- 
S(i)crc0 TO ivOtKlOV f09 TTpoKleiTai). 
.XvpijXios A(»p[d]^eo9 NtXou eypayfra 
vTrep aiiTgs ypuppuTa pg eiBveigs (sic). 



FIVE LEASES IN TFiE PKINCET< )N COLLEL'l IoN 


In the year following the consulship of the most illustrious Flucii. Eucherius and Si/agriu.s. 
on the l^th of Epiph. To Flavius Crespnis, erpraepositus, landholder. -</ the illustrious and 
most illustrious city of Oxyrhynchus. From Aurelia Noona. daughter of A/iemuhtrus of //,,■ 
same city. I roluntarihj undertake to lease from the <f next month, irhii h is Mesore. (f 
the current year, which is the loth {of Grutian). the llh {<f Valentinian //), the :]rd {/f Theo- 
dosius), and is the llth year of the indiction, your entire house u-ith all ti.-, furnishhu/s situated 
in the quarter of Thoeris Place in the aforesaid city. The annual rental shidl he 14,5nii silver 
denarii, which I shall pay in semi-annual instaluouts. and whenever you shall de-ire, I sh’dl 
surrender the property clear of dung and all filth in the same eoiulitiou as I fool, it over. This 
lease is valid, and on formal interrogation. I hare ay real to it. 

I, Aurelia Nonna, daughter of Artemidorus. have leased the house and shall pay the ri nt a- 
agreed. I, Aurelius Dorotheas, son of Nilus. wrote this on her behalf as she is illiterate. 

Measurements: 27-7xl9'7 cm. Complete except tor small gaps in lines 18-21, Dated in 
the year following the consulship of Eucherius and Syagrius, Epiph the 18th, i.c.. Julv 12 
A.D. 382. 

3. diro TTpanroalLTinn) = ex praejjositis. C'f. P. tlen. Ki (A,]), olo), 4't {ca . A.n. .'i.'iO). 
P. Oxy. 1973 (a.d. 420). The title is more common in doouments of the sixth i i'nturx 
{P. Flor. 281: P. Load. 1687; Preisigke, P. Cairo, index. '•.)■,). Ir is given more fully in 
P. Cairo Masp. 67296, 15 as diroirpaiTr. Kuarpo. In references to the otticials (-./ ],raepo.-iii- 
or praepositi in documents later than a.d. 415 we must understand that either the pno - 
positus castrorum is meant {P. Cairo Masp. G729ti. 3 note), or. as Boll suL'ge-t' (/'. Loud. 
1687, 23 note), the praepositus limitis, rather than the pra< pmsitu- payi of whom thero 
appears to be no record in Egyjtt after a.d. 411 (Gelzer, Fttahcn -.ur by:. Verm, .-lei/ypivn.-, 
57, 96). In earlier documents, however, the latter ollicial has been generallv umler.stood 
whenever the title praepo-Atus is mentioned without further definition {P. Amh. 1 15: Prei- 
SIGKE, P. Cairo, 6: P. Lips. Ill; P. Thead. 52). Oertel’s general attribution of ptdice 
duties and powers to this official is based chieHy on tliis assumption whir-h we btdieve to 
be questionable. References to the praepo-ilu- may be clas.-'ilied a^ fol]o\‘. .s: 

(1) Documents where direct reference is made to the praepo-'tu.. jja,/, or to his dutie.s 
in the village. Cf. P. (Jjy. 1253, P. Thead. 16. Preisigke. P. Ca.ro. Is. ]i) ;i:j, />. E,,nP 
408 and 971 (= Mitteis, Chrest. 95), P. Amh. 140. 

(2) Documents where the title clearly refers to the praepo.-itu.s ca.-trorum as in the 
archives of Abinnaeus, who also holds the oltice of praefectus alae {P. Loud., vol, 2 and P. 
Gen. passim; P. Oxy. llOl. which is an edict forbidding civilians to have recourM; to the 
military ollicial: [toj yap rr^panroaLTo} pel' [[tw/]] a-pariioTon' etp^w t^eari, [ici'iiTtoi') 
oviceTi). 

(3) Documents where the praepositus performs police duties. Hero the prui pij.-Uus 

castrorum is probably meant since we know that he exercised such functions (P. Gen. 47. 
and possibly P. Thead. 13 and 52. Cf. Gelzer, op. at., 59: M ili lex, Grund'.ugi'. 407, 41.5), 
while we hax-e no definite evidence that the village official did (Prei.sd.ke, P. (’airo G- 
P. Oxy. 1506). The judicial functions of the two offices certainly ov.Tlappcd— legitimately 
or by usurpation (P. Oxy. IfOl . P. Loud. 408) -and it is pos.sible that the same may be true 
of the police authority. A Theadelphian appeals to both (P. Thead. 22 and 2:>). L'nfor- 
tunately these two documents are fragmentary and their interpretation, therefore, is not 
definitely certain. But they admit the po.ssibility that the duties of two officials were dis- 
tinguished a.s judge and police agent respectively. To the praepositus p.ujt the appeal reads 
as follows: d^ico ottois «t\. dvayicdays [••••] ~o diroKaTaaTadijnu toG [ 1 



124 


H. B. VAN HOESEN and A. C. JOHNSON 


Xoyoi'i e’li'a hvvrjOta to 7 rp[. .]a (sc. irpo^ara) a'jroXa^eli . To the praepositus castroTum the 
appeal is: d^ioj ktX. oVa)? tovtov avvXa/^co/ievoi KaTavayKaap'i avTov airoKaTacTTijaai pot 
TO. KUKoi^ Ka0rjp7ra<T0£VTa. Apparently the former is req^uested to pronounce judgement 
{\6yoi<i{) and there is, no evidence that he exercised police duties. The military official, 
however, is asked to arrest the defendant and to execute judgement, but it is impossible 
to say whether he had the power to give the judicial decision or not. In P. Thead. 21 a 
legal trial is implied and the praepositus pagi is requested to summon [peraicaXeaacrdat) 
the offender to judgement. Cf. P. AmJi. 141 which Gelzee {op. cit., 57) calls a case of 

Eechtsschutz.” 

(4) Finally there is a group of documents {e.g., oiu’ lease) of which the content gives no 
clue to the duties of the praepositus or to his fuller title. In all these cases we are inclined 
to believe that the praepositus custrorum is meant, in view of the fact that his position was 
doubtless older, more powerful and more important. At any rate the ex-praepositis are 
doubtless military rather than civihan (cf. Cod. J. 10. 48, 2). A law, already ancient in the 
time of Yalentinian, provided that those who nominated civilians to the office of prae- 
po.situs pagi, if the candidate proved incompetent, should themselves be liable for the 
obligations involved in the proper discharge of the liturgy {Cud. J. 10. 72, 2). 

9. For a similar dating by regnal years, cf. P. Oxy. 1041, 16. The problem of the 
arrangement of the indiction in the years 380-383 is somewhat complicated. From P. Gen. 
68 we learn that the eleventh year of this cycle began as early as Pachon (before May 8, 
A.D. 382), Usually the indiction began in Pauni, but examples of its beginning in the earlier 
month may be found in P. Land. lo83, 3 note and 1692, 4 note. In P. Oxy. 1041 (dated 
Pauni 15, a.d. 381) the payment of a loan is set for Mesore 1 (July 25, a.d. 381) of the rtinth 
indiction (ri),' Trapovags evdrgs [tVSfVTtwco?]). If the scribe did not make a blunder in the 
number of the indiction, it is evident that he knew at the time of drafting the document 
that the new indiction would not begin until after the first of Mesore. Similar examples 
of indictions beginning in Mesore are found in late Byzantine documents (P. Oxy. 1954: 
Mesore 16th, 5th indiction, beginning of 6th; P. Grenf. Series 2, 100: Mesore 2nd, 11th 
indiction). M’hen. however, we turn to P. Lips. 21 which is dated by the consuls in 
A.D. 382, the lease is said to begin in the tiintk indiction (otto tmv KapirSiv rip evrvxow 6’ 
ifSi/cTtcovos). Although it is possible to assume that the scribe made a mistake, it is much 
more hkely that we are here dealing with a retroactive lease where the lessees had entered 
into possession after the harvest of the previous year and had done all the necessary work 
in connexion with the leasehold but had neglected to make the formal written contract 
until the new harvest was ready (</. AVaszynski, Die Bodenpacht, 65; Beeuee, loc. cit., 378). 

The indictions from a.d. 380 383 must have fallen somewhat as follow's; 

9th indiction Pauni (?) 380-c«. Mesore 15, 381 (P. Oxy. 1041). 

10th „ ca. Jlesore 15, 381-c«.. Pachon 12, 382 (P. Gen. 68)'. 

11th „ crt. Pachon 12, 382-Pauni (?), 383. 

The period of the tenth indiction is unusually short and we know of no other similar ex- 
ample. The irregularity may be due to a mistake of the scribe, abnormal agricultural 
conditions (if the indiction depends upon the harvest, we might assume that a late harvest 
was followed by an early one), or possibly to some political disturbance or reorganization 
{cf. Gelzee, op. cit., 7 ff.). There is little likelihood that money loans were made according 

’ The editor of P. Gen. 70 dated the document in the tenth indiction, probably in a.d. 381. Professor 
Victor Martin has kindly examined tlie document at our reque.st and he state.s that the indiction year 
should be given as ji' rather than i. This document, therefore, does not fall within the years 380-383. 



FIVE LEASES IN THE PEINCETON (T)L LECTION 


to the Byzantine indiction (P. Oj'ij. lOdl) or that thh iiidictioii wa', 
this early date (P. Grenf. Series 2, 86, 5 note). 

11. i^pofiov ©orjptBos. Gf. Rixk, op. cil.. 21til. 

14. This rental is absurdly small when com])ared with tlic 2100 si 
an upper room at Hermoupolis a few years earlier (P. h/p.v. 17, .v.i 
twelve million denarii paid for two rooms at Oxyrhvnehus in a.d. 1 111 
the rental cited in 4 above. 

17. This example of lease on indefinite tenure is consideralily ear 
by Berger, op. cit., 370 ff. Waszyxski (BoiJriipuchf . 02 If.) believes tin: 
in land leases marks the beginning of serfdom. However, the early 
tenancies in the leasing of houses seems to imply that indefinite tenun 
cation. We doubt if the tenant was bound to vacate without notice 
lease at the landlord’s pleasure (c/. Berger, op. cd.. 372). 


125 

current in Egypt at 

lv(‘r talents jiaid for 
). 377), or with the 
(P. Or//. 1129). CJ. 

lier than tho^e cited 
it ■■ leiiancv at will '' 
ajijiearaiici' of such 
■ had no such imjili- 
or to continue the 



126 


NOTE OX AX AXCIEXT EOYPTIAX EIOUKE 

By warren R. DAWSON 
With PI. XV. 


As one of the illustrations of my article “Making a Mummy" {Journal, xiii, 40 If.) 
I reproduced a photograph of the figure of a man inside a jar (PL xvi, b) and suggested 
that this might represent a mummy in course of treatment in the embalmer’s salt-bath. 
AVhether this suggestion be correct or not, the figure is of a rare and interesting type. 
IMr. Leo J. Rabbette of Boston, Mass., has since been good enough to send me photo- 
graphs of a similar figure in his possession and has enhanced the favour by permitting 
me to publish them. (PL xv.) A comparison of these photographs with that of the 
figure I previously published reveals certain differences in detail, particularly in the 
position of the hands, but the two specimens are clearly of the same type. Nothing is 
known of the history of 3Ir. Rabbette's specimen, which was obtained from a dealer in 
Cairo. 

l\lr. Rabbette submitted his figure to Mr. Dows Dunham, Assistant Curator of the 
Egyptian Department of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, who gave the following 
specification of the object: 

“Material. Both jar and figure of common red brown ware, slightly straw marked, 
hand made, with traces of burnished red wash. 

“Figure. Crude human figure in extreme contracted position, hands spread over face, 
knees and elbows in contact, ankles touching base of torso. Feet broken off and 
missing. Base of figure and legs roughly dressed with a stick or knife and flat on 
bottom. No indication of embalmer’s incision— a slight irregular depression on left hip, 
just above the hip-joint and below the top of the pehdc bone, appears to me to be 
accidental. The oral ca-vities deeply indicated, apparently by pressure and rotation of a 
jiointed stick before baking. The figure is partially coated with a thin muddy film. In 
parts, and above the level of the top of the jar only, distinct traces of burnished red 
wash, especially on arms, knees, back and shoulders. (None on head or hands.) 

“Height over all, 30'5cm.; base to top of knees, 15‘Ocm. ; top of head to tip of 
chin, 9'7 (vertically ); front to back at shoulders, lO’O, at base, ILO; width at shoulders, 
6 '5, at base, 6 ’7, at temples 6’0. 

"Jar. Same material as figure: traces of red wash and burnish. Irregular, roughly 
flat base outside, roimded inside. Rim very irregular and slightly thickened, with shallow 
external groove for cover binding. Height, 18 '2 cm.; diameter of rim, 19'6 and 18‘7. 
mean 19T; diameter of base, ca. 7'4; internal height, 15'4; thickness of rim, ca. 1'5. 
\\hen in position in jar, the top of the figure rises 18’4 cm. above rim of jar.” 

It has been suggested to me that this figure may represent a contracted burial in 
a pottery coffin, which at first sight seems not improbable; on the other hand, the 
flattened base both of the figure and of the jar seems to show that its proper position 
is vertical and not horizontal. So far as I am aware, no contracted burials with a 




I’ottcT)- figure ()l .1 cnniclu'iu; man in a jai, in tlu- possession of 
Mr. L. J. Rabbette of boston, Mass. 




NOTE ON AN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN FIGURE 


rJ7 

vertical axis either with or without pottery coffins have ever been discovered in Egypt. 
However this may be, the object seems to me to be of sufficient rarity and interest to 
be worth putting on record, especially as we have the ailvantage of Mr. Dunham’s 
examination. 

P.S. There is an interesting passage in the Pyramid Te.vts which seems to refer to 
embalming in a jar. I overlooked this when writing my oiiginal article, and it will be 
convenient to insert it here. The phrase, which reads as follows, occurs twice in § 1.37. 



“Unis has come forth from his jar after having rested in his jar." 



128 


DAVID GEORGE HOGARTH 

Died Nov. 6, 1927 

The death of Dr. Hogarth has removed not only a great archaeologist but one who 
always took a very special interest in the Egypt Exploration Society. His own active 
participation in its field-work was short: he helped Naville at Der el-Bahri in the early 
nineties, he looked for papyri in the Fayyum in 1895-6 with Grenfell, and that was all. 
His work at Naukratis, which went over the ground of Petrie’s old campaigns for the 
Egypt Exploration Fund, was not carried out for the Fund, and his exploration of the 
cliff-tombs near Asyut was done for the British Museum. But he had been for twenty 
years an active member of the Committee, where his contribution to the work of the 
executive was always weighty and wise, and as Ashmole’s Keeper consideration of the 
interests of his museum made him a regular member of the Distribution Committees. 
Here his contribution to the discussion was characteristic. At first he would be 
completely disinterested: really he did not much care what he took; anyhow he would 
not put the Ashmolean forward. Let others speak. But in the end one usually found 
that Hogarth had got the things he really wanted. He was a diplomat as well as an 
archaeologist ! Hogarth’s interest in the Society was almost as great as his interest in 
the Eoyal Geographical, which is saying a good deal. He never grudged work or trouble 
on our behalf. 

Egypt did not, of course, interest him as did his first love, Anatolia, and later North 
Syria. In ^Mesopotamia proper, or Assyria and Babylonia, he may be said to have taken 
practically no interest, but directly one crossed the Khabur or traversed the defiles of the 
Tigris above Jeziret Ibn-‘Umar his archaeological territory was entered. The connexions 
between Mesopotamia and Syria and the Hittite lands are, however, so close that there 
is no doubt that Hogarth’s Hittite work would have benefited from closer acquaintance 
with Assyrian and Babylonian matters. But every student has to draw the line some- 
where, and Hogarth already covered a territory large enough for most men! His 
historical and archaeological work, by which he is and will remain best known abroad 
and to his fellow-workers here, was perhaps most evident in the Anatolian and North- 
Syrian sphere. His excavation for the British Museum at Ephesus, in continuation of 
our old work there under Wood in the fifties, was an excellent example of archaeological 
method, and the reward, in the priceless relics of early Ionian art at Constantinople, was 
rich. Then came his digging of Carchemish, with C. L. WooUey, T. E. Lawrence, and 
R. C. Thompson as his assistants, which was carried on after he left by Woolley and has 
been publi.shed by them both. Of this work many interesting trophies may be seen in the 
British Museum, which administered the funds provided by a wealthy sympathizer for 
the excavation. 

Hogarth s publication of the famous Ashmolean collection of Hittite seals, which he 
largely got together himself, was a labour of love to him. That brilliant and suggestive 
book Ionia and the East will always be a source of inspiration to labourers in a most 
fascinating field. It was a pity in some ways that Hogarth did not work more in the 
Alexandrian field. He knew far more than most other English scholars of ancient 



DAYID GEOEGE HOGAiri’H 


llJ!) 

Alexandria, and was always interested in the age of " Philip and Alexander of Macedon " ; 
but he had neither time nor opportunity for this work. 

In less purely historical and archaeological circles in thi.s country Hogarth is no 
doubt known best as a geographer, especially of .\rabia, on wliicli niysteriou.s land and 
its inhabitants he had written semi-popularly since the publieation of his Xenrer East, witli 
the result that he became one of the chief authorities on the subject, with further con- 
sequences in the work of the Arab Bureau at Cairo during the war. and in the J’resiilency 
of the Royal Geographical Society, which fell to him the last year of his life, and gave 
him a very great deal to do. 

Hogarth never spared work. In spite of an insouciant manne!'. an amusing air rif 
detachment from “ professional " archaeology (and a very English understatement of his 
own Contributions to it) he worked very hard indeed. And he worked to the end. He 
may, as he said, have become an archaeologist by accident, and he may h.ive been 
intended by nature rather for a di[)lomat or an administrator of cultivated — nay 
learned — tastes, but after all he devoted his life very largely to archaeology and to our 
knowledge of the ancient world, and to the furtherance of archaeological interests 
both in his University and outside. His apparent economy of cnthu.-'iasjn veiled an 
interest as keen as anybody's, and more disciplined than that of moH. .\nd though 
some suspected this aloofness and the shrug and half-cynical smile with which he* would 
often refer to his own work as in reality marking a •'.superiority crjmplex"' second to 
none, I always thought that his modesty at any rate was as genuine as it wa.s 
undeserved. He is perhaps appreciated be.st by members of hi' own University. His way 
of thinking and of writing were typically of Oxford. -V gencralizer; he wanted the wood 
and cared nothing for the trees. A swift seizer of salient characteristics, a comparer and 
a brilliant summer-up. A master of allusion and of comprehension of much in a [jlirase. 

Striking phrases were characteristic of his style. Often proving hini.self a ma.ster of 
the mot juste, at other times he was a little difticult for the uninitiated to follow. He 
used odd words sometimes; he liked for instance to talk of ancient state.s and peoj)lps as 
“societies"’; such a phrase as -‘a Hittite society in An.itolia" may have j)uzzlcd more 
than one reader not nurtured in the groves of .\caileme. A touch of jireciosity here and 
there. But it is difficult to ring the change.s on the English language, fertile thf>ug}i it 
be in expedients, in descriptive work of the archaeological and especially the geograiihical 
kind, and still be distinct in style and, above all. readable. Hogarth always was both, 
and much of the success of his Xearer East was due to this characteristic style of his. 
which could condense illuminating information into few words. Some dubbed him a 
“journalist” on this account. That is then to say that nearly every Oxford man is a 
bit of a journalist, or ha.s the jh.iir for superior journalism. Xo doubt he has; why 
notl And Hogarth when on occasion he did act as an aetual journalist was an 
extremely good one. He had a .sense of the pres.s. and an unfailing power of descrijhion. 
Of his two travel-books in lighter vein we need not .'peak; there are chapters in them 
that are almost classical, such as the description of the flood at Zakro in Crete (in 
Accidents of an Antiqaarifs Life) and of the ridt* in the storm down the Calycadnus 
Valley (in *f Wandering Ar/iolar in the Lcnait). Others, such as that of the serpent- 
slavers of the Delta (Accidents, etc.) are delightful, even rollicking, in their humour. 
Hoearth alwavs saw the humour of a situation, though somewhat grimly at times. 
Characteristic was the tale ho would tell of his early book Deriu Ci/pria, the story of his 
wanderings in C'ypru.s, that he believed it was now only to be found in the boxes 
devoted by cheap booksellers to literature of a very rloubtful nature. 

Jdui'u lit Eu'pt. -Vivh. XIV. 


17 



130 


H. R. HALL 


Of his Egyptian work and experiences lie wrote little. His digging at Asyut in 1907 
never satisfied him, and he never published its results, although it yielded some very 
interesting early Middle Kingdom coffins to the national collection. All we hear of it is 
in a single chapter in Accidents of an Antiquarfs Life. His two seasons’ work at 
Naiikratis was published with C. C. Edgar in the Annual of the British School at Athens, 
V (1898), 26 11., and in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxv (1905), 10511. He added a 
good deal of interest and importance to Petrie’s discoveries. His papyrus-hunting work, 
with B. P. Grenfell, for the Fund in the Fayyum was published in Fayiun Towns and 
their Papyri (1900). At Der el-Bahri he did nothing that he considered worth talking 
about, being there merely as assistant to Naville to gain experience in excavation, and 
having then no Egyptological knowledge. Hogarth never had the time or probably the 
inclination to study the hieroglyphs, but he was a very accurate and knowledgeable critic 
of Egyptian art, which he knew as well as most men, and in which he was always keenly 
interested. 

Many younger men. not least among them the writer of this, have experienced real 
kindness, much more than mere courtesy, at his hands, and will always remember with 
pleasure the figure with the slight nuance of the country gentleman in its attire, the 
manner at first abrupt, then with a broadening smile on the face presaging some ironical 
remark in the unusual and unforgettable resonant yet (except on public occasions) not 
loud voice, the short phrased, curt sentences in speaking, and the handwriting, neat and 
scholarly yet swiftly flowing, with the characteristic signature. All will regret his un- 
timely death. 


H. E. Hall. 



1.31 


BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAEGO-ROMAX EC^PT 
A. PAPYRI (1920—1927) 


[Even after obtaiiiiiiy a^>i.staiice in the preparatnai of tin.. mm. xiii, ‘..I, n.jti' I 

found it KO exliaubting a ta.bk that I reluctantly decided to .ili.iiidoii it. A.., ho\ve\cr. no 'ingle peiM.n could 
be found to eontiiiue the work it \va,' eventually airanged to make it' produetion a |oint nnileitakni'.; 
The scholars who have assi.sted this year, and who will. I hojie, contiiiuo their coH.-d 'oral ion in tin. fullin', 
are: — Mr. H. J. M. Milne, Mr. A. D. Nock, Mr. .J. (1 Milne, Mr. X. H. H.vvnls, Prof, I-', m. Zi i.i i:i.\. 
Mi.ss M. E. Dicker, ilr. R. McKenzie. The plan adojded h.i' lieeii to dnide the reading of tlie periodicals 
used among the contributors, each reader coinniunic.itin.g references which fall out'ide Ins own sphere f.t 
the proper person. Each collaborator is responsible for the compilation and .iriangemeut of hi' own 
section (at the end of which his name will be found , though I lia\e made a few editorial i liangc' to seciiie 
g'reater uniformity of form and have added a few reference' not acces'ible to the author .if the .section' in 
which they Occur. H.I. B.] 

1. Liter.cry Texts. 

Culhvti'j/ts. Several important cnllectioiis have appeared in the cmiise of the year, e.i'ily headed la the 
now volume (xvii of the < K'lirhiincltas the literary 'ectmii of whii-h lont-nn' import. mt fr.icment.s 

of the Aiti'i of Calliiii.iclius, ile'iod's Sapiilm Ilk. ii alre.elc pitl.li'ln-.l ly b.iin.i , S..pl,.Hli'' 

SiiupUus'!, Euripidosl — Pirith'jJ's, Phlegoii — (7(/'eee.'.' ', Life of Ae'..[>, I'hicomium ..n th.. Kig, .'ll liolia on 
Euphorion ?, Tre.ttisc on Rhetoric, Glo"ary, L.itin fr.egnient on .^eiMUs TulliU'. L.itin .luri'ti.- livegment. 
Also additional fragments of lultiifutu-:, EonjpyUi-<, Sapplm. Alc.ieii', Jl.e .. liylidc'. Iby. ii'. Among known 
works are: Hesiod — T’/ieo^oey and OpiV'U Piiidar — OL ii, Sof.ho,. le'— d/'or, Lycoplir..ii — I'Ji-'i, 
Herodotus — Bks. i, vii, viii, Thucydides — Bk', iv. v. viii. Cyr'.ip^i' di" i, Plato's Phij'jdr.i.-, Oaius— 
ti(jMS iv. For the uon-literary te.vts in this volume see .S A. 

Another batch of fragments from Oxyrhyiicliii'. publi'Iied by Ei'...\r in Jio.o/.., </.' d ■ d' s 
Autiqnites da I' EyijiJta. XWI, 203-21ti, includes- Homer. ( '.dlimachns- ■ //./„./, . I, with s. Imlia, 

glossarv, hexameters, Hosii.td — Thaoij<.ni;i^ Hesimlic t.enc.d.'gt <.f ller-e-los. Xen..phon — ,1/ ' . HI. 1 1 l'>t‘ 'TV 
of Alexander, Oppiau — Il<di>jiitiixi. 

The new P.S.I. Vlii contains fragments of Kind an.l Roni.iiae with nainO' ..f KaXXr/.ii'i] .uid 

Eu,3iorof, Prophecy on 7-dXairci .K’iyvnTns, Multifilicatioii table.s, Lexicon, i.I'tr.ikou with hexameters men- 
tioning Pleuron and Calydou. 

P.tUL CoLL.tHT publishes ill La< pniiiii-i's Ett'iriiiiii, Pari'. P.i^U, .in inL[.ort,int tio.iti'e on Aeolic firms. 
Other pieces include: Historical fr.igmeiit meiitioiiing Ptolenn, more A<t'i .lA ••nnlrinn ', Pin! xili. .md 
a schoolboy's exercise-book first published iii lUOO iii W O'scly ,' Ht'idiai' 

P'mallv we may mention a convenient compilation — Cnt, i,j t/,. LiUx-nry I'mim-i i I/... lU iii.d, Mii.X’i,,,, 
1927, by H. .1. M. XIilne with many .suggestions by Orcinkrt. Hunt and Beii. Magic except amulet'; 
and metrolu,gv are excluded. Most of the pieces are known alre.idy .uni ot these ,is .i rule only a dc'i riptioa 
with pertinent bibliography is given .althoiigh .some of the Patm Pnfiiiri are rc-e.iitcii . The new’ items 
include: two important Alexandrian dram.itic lyrics, pocims of Dio'coru' of Aphroditopnli', an n/./, 

scholia on the Aitiu, epigrams of P.irtheiiiU', early metrical colo|ihon publ. in < !. II- - ,, xi.l. On , scr.ips 
.issigned to Semoiiidcs of Aiuorgos and Archiloi hii'. granun.irs .issigmd to PlirMiichu' and Latin to 
Palaciiion, a long ru-rrot I^iKurinoL a iion-vuig.ite P->fd xil, an Invoc.ition to the Xile. inedu.d receipts, 
biblical texts, theology, etc. At p. 12fi observe that Xo. l.'i:5~P. Here. 1149 ,aml er.isp “ 
p. 127 Xo. lb4 = P. Here. 1042 and erase “The remainder— X.iples.'"' 

E. C.W.tiGN.tc gives statistics of aiitlmrs found and ch.incC' of attribution in S-‘r r-iltrdi-iiii-i- 
fraq'iuei-ts de {Pa-'. d- I h'/. ana., I, I927)-2<. 17(>-‘^1 . 

IxoRTe's HP la m.-it' .nd-a Di't/.la/iy, 192.), is reviewed be .1, IiI.ei'cKi.n in ic/.o/ze./.. 192,, (,92 li, by- 
E. Pfeiffer in Phd. H'oc/o, 192»5, OOl-G, .uid by .J. H.vmmlr in t'A/.-.c PUd., 1927, 1 1.7-1>^. 


17- 2 



132 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 


Powell’s Coll. Alexandrina is reviewed by P. Maas iii U nornon, 1927, 689-92, and by E. Cahen in Rev. 
ei. a DC , 1926, 185-7. 

Ejiic. In Clci.is. Philology, xxii, 99-100, Oldfather eontirms a reading of Zenodotus and Aristophanes 
ill Oil. I, ;i8 from Pap. 121 in the Brit. Mils, and Epictetus, in, i, 38 in Cod. Vind. 307 — 'Epfidav TT(fi\jvai.Te 
SuUroimv. Clekaud's Odysxcy paiiyriis i.s reviewed by Hombert in Rec. Beige Phil. Hist., v (1926), ,215-16. 

Henri Henne prints in Bull. lu.^tit. Franc. d’Arch. orient., xxvii (1927), 79-82, 11. in, 1-5, from an 
ostrakoii. Xew reading in 1. 5 poycni', vulgate podav. 

In Riv. di Filologia, 1926, 572 f., A. E. reviews Wintee'.s edition of '.CkKiidpavros Trepi 'Opgpov (see 
Journal, XIII, 85). 

An epic fragment ^1-2 cent. A.D.) with parts of 21 lines, mentioning Egypt and the Nile, is edited bj?^ 
S. Eitrem in Rynibolae Osloenscs, v (1927). 

Lyric. Lobel has now followed up his edition of Sappho with a companion volume, AAKAIOY ME AH, 
Oxford, 1927, 111 which ho subjects the usage of Alcaeus to those rigorous tests which have so dismayed 
the critics of his Sappho. Eeviewed in the Times Lit. SuppL, 12 Jan. 1928, and by J. M. Edmonds in 
Camh. Pier., 27 Jan. 1928. J. Sitzler review.s the Sajipho in Phil. Woch., 1927, 993-1004, and makes 
many suggestions. F. Stiebitz proposes restorations of Sappho 65 (Diehl) in Phil. Woch., 1926, 1259-62. 

Medea Xors.v publishes FrammcHti di un inno di Philulos, 32 choriambs (right half preserved) of a 
hymn to Denieter .,3 cent. B.c.j in Stud. Ital. di Fit. Class., 1927, 87-92. Cf. P. Maas in Neues eu Philiskos 
voii Kerkyra. in Cnoiaon, HI, 439-40. 

Vol. Ill of Ed.monds’ Lyra Oraecu has now appeared, containing Baochylides, Timotheus, etc. 

I learn from Aegyptus of two fragments of hymns to Isis published by G. Olivebio in Hot. Arch. 
Colohie, IV ',1927', 207-12. Bacchylides ill is tran, slated by G. Cammelli in Atene e Roma, 1926, 204-7, 
and in the same volume, 286-8, N. Russo interprets and translates the Alexandrian Erotic Fragment 
(P. Greiif. I. 1; — La Fandalla Ahhandonuta. 

Elegiac. The Berlin Tyrtaeus, text and translation, is re-edited by V. de F.vlco in Riv. Iado-(Jrec.-ltal., 
X (1926;, 63-76. 

Edgar publishes in Ann. du Service, xxvii, 31-2, a Greek epitaph of 16 lines from Saqqarah of the 
Roman period in dialogue form on one Heras. 

Drama. Togliano re-edits a tragic fragment first published by Vitelli in Rev. e'gyptologique, i 
(1919 — II fraiiimeiito trugico fiorentiao in Riv. di Fil., 1926, 206-17. 

IViLAMOwiTZ gives restorations and sugge.sts the Phrixus of Sophocles in Riv. di Fil., 1927, 79. 
Attributed in Herme.i, 1028, 1-14, by W. Schadew.vldt in a more elaborate discussion to the Phrixus of 
Euripides. 

The sources of the Ichneiitae are discussed by L. Previale in BoU. di Fil. Classica, xxxm (1927), 
174-82. Ho tiiid.s other origins besides the Hymn to Hermes. I learn from Aegyptus of an article by 
F. Ageno, Pudicazioni di senso negli Ichneutai di Sofocle, in Raccolta Ramorino (Milano, 1927, 027-59). 
The Evrypylus is studied by G. Brizi in Aegyptus, 1927, 3-39. The Hypsipyle is shown to he a late play 
by the resolved 5th foot in col, iv, 35 of P. Oxy., by A. KoRTE in Phil. Woch., 1927, 584, in a review of 
Th. Zielinski’s Tragodumenon lihri in. 

liiirsians .Tahreshcricht, Lll (1926j, reports on the recent (1921-25) literature on comedy. The new dis- 
coveries are allotted a section. Important .studies on Menander appear in Rk. Mus., lxxvi (1927), 1-13, by 
Ch. .Iensen — Der Anfang des J Aktes der Epitrepontes. He places leaf Z as first of the quaternio and 
admits the Didot pijais as the speech of Pamphile. 

Marcel Hombert tran.slates the Uepucapopcvr] as La femme au.e cheveux coupts in Rev. Beige de 
Philalogie et dHlstoire, vi (1927;, 1-30. The same play, 11. 147-51, is interpreted in Hermes, 1927, by 
IVir AMuWiTZ — I.,esefrnchte, ccxxvii. 

The (J largos, 1. 34 {koKov y an e“rf) is translated “a fine thing it would be” (ironically), and in Sarnia, 
322-3, TTiBavov is treated as neuter — by O. GufiRAUD in Bull. Instit. Franc. ckArck. onentale, xxvii (1927), 
111 - 12 . 

Capovill.a’s Menander is reviewed by 0. Regenbogen in Or. Lit.-Z., xxx (1927), 854-6. Contents not 
deemed adequate to .scope. \'ogliano reviews Wilamowitz — Schiedsgericht in Boll. Fil. Class., 1926, 
144 53, and Coppola in Rir. di. Fil., 1927, 394-402. I learn from the Cl. Rev. of a new edition of M. by 
M. G. M ADDELL — Selections from Menander. Pp. xx.xvi-|-182 ; illu-strations. Oxford: Clar. Press, 1927. 
7 6 net. A 2-3 cent, papyrus from the Fayyum with the sub.scription MevdvSpov yvapai is edited by 
K. K-VLiiELEiscH from the Jaiida collection in Hermes, 1928, 100-3. Six of the 10 lines are new. Neither 



BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (192G-1927) L'.S 

the Loeh nor the Bi’de Horochis ha.'- appeared a^ yet. Hek/.ouV eilitmii is reviewed hy Knox rather 
favourably iu the Journal, xill (19:17', and SiTZr.ER review.s H.’s Trmun <hs, Ihroadatt I Vhilohiifn--, 

Lxxix, .370-433) with various proposals in Pldl. Worhenschr., XLVii . 1927 ■, 3.'>-40. 

VoGLIANO re-as.serts in Anxora I rni miiniirinlxj rli llemdu that a woman is th(' .s]icak('r. Thinks a 
column may be missing and doubts if the pre.sent end really belongs to this mime. W'oulii sera]i 11. 3". 31, 
dewv aSfXfpoyv Tifievos, etc., in (Mime I — Jiit\ di Pd,, 1927, i l-t^. 

In Mneniosi/ne, 1927, 104-8, Voi.lgraff discusses tlie meaning of jri'pairrpiji' in Ih rojar, iv, 02. 

Grammar. By.. Ztsohr., 1927, 181, reviews a publication: Willi (Iobek, Ein .^yita utik. r /’. /y/aae ct- 
kode.v des Dionysius Thra.r., P. Hah, .75 o. Mitlehdtrrlirhn Ilnndhihrifli',}, F^stipd,, .urn o'o. < him rt slaiy con 
Bennann Derjeriny. Leipzig, Hier.sein.uin, 1920. S. 111-ls 1 T.d'. Codex ofa Ocem. 

History. Various historical papyri .ire re-edited by .l.xcnin in lus t,7-, H istnrdur. P. Here. 
1418 hs restored by Vogliaxo in Suori Testi 5fo/'0 i' and Ueloch .adds a 'Ujipleuient.iia note on Mithns 
Riv. di HI., 1927, 310-31. 

The papyrus on the archaeology of Thucydidc.s is reviewed by Ro.ssii.u h in /V,<V. H’o. //.. 192(!, 713. ,ind 
by K. Fr. W. Schmidt in Gnomon, iii (1927), 61. 

The Olympian Chronicle (of Phlegon?) = P. O.xy. ii, 222, is lepubhshed by W. .1 im.i.i. in Klin. .x.xi 
(1927), 244-9. 

In Glas.s. Phil., 1926, :l4G-7.5. W. (1. Il.VItDV writes on Thu Hullunira O.ryrhyn. hnl and tin 1)‘ rastilinin 
of Attica. 

Mcdicirie. X.vchm.vxs 0 N''s AKuplatoniscItcr Galcnkornno idar sec Jouriad, Xlll. S7 1 is naieued by 
E. Fuchs in PkU. Woch., 1927, 54.5-8. 

E. PezOPOCLOs makes several restorations in a-ogaTipn/cr^iv (U a-nTripots "hXKrjvai taTpms xm llrfiima 
K.OVS fTvyypa(fi€ls '■ By^. Seugr. Jhh., v, 1926, 63-7-7.1. 

Metrics. An important article, .S ' musicalc d-i natri ]ty (.'.\[{\ n )o.i (liisMiK in Rir. Indo- 

Grec.-Ital, 1927, 1-141, uses the evidence of p. O.xy. 9, 22i.i, etc. 

Music. Th. Reinach’s La Musigue grccgv.c, 1926, is reviewed by A. Plkcii in ./. <7., .s'.o.odc 1927, 
88-9, and by C. del Orande in Rir. Indo-Grec.-ItaJ . 1926, 2''2-:{. 

The hymn with music (P. Oxy. 1786) is treated by O. L usPRI Xi . — Iter Hyiunu.s </./,■ (J., nrhym hos im 
Rahmen unserer kirchen-musikalischea Frnhzeit in TheiJogic v. Glauhc, xvin ,1926 . 397 419: .ind lu 
H. Albert — Do.s Olteate Denkmal dcr • hristUchen KirJicnmusik in Die Antikc, ii 1926 . :ls2-90. Those 
references I owe to Byzant. Ztschr. 

Orators. In the Bude Aeschines, tome l, by V. Martin -md (1. nt. III ru;, 1927, the .lUthonty of the 
papyrus te.xt.s is examined. 

L. Amundsen discusses an Oslo papyrus fragment of Uemosthenes, /)■ t', snininanzed in I’hd. 
^yoch., 1927, 820-1,. It agrees mostly with -S. 

lutere.sting fragment.s from a collection of progymnasmata are puhh'hed from .i 3-4 cent. Vienna 
papyrus by H. Oer.stinger in ALittedu ngen des Vcreinc.s Uas<. Rhdologcn in H'lVa, i\ 1927 . 37 17. 

Philosophu. In a very important article. The HerUd in ntig'iity, m Janrn H'H .ifud.. xi.vii 1927 . 
1-52, C. Singer edits, with plates, the .lohiison pap\ nis and connects it with th<' pseudo-. \pulciu' tr.idition. 

S. Luri.x discus.scs P. O.xy. xv, 1797, lu L' A rgonanlazionc di .\ ntitiudc m /hr. Fd., 1927, 80 3, while 
AVilamowitz iu Lcsefrnchte, Cc'XXI ’Hermes, ]92i . seconds Lritl \ 111 his comjt.ir'son ol .Vntiplion and 
Euripides isee Journal, xill, 87 c The sophist Antiphon can be di'tim.'uislicd fr..m tiie or,it..r textually b\ 
the former always using the form and rr for later inv .itid ncr .so Luriv iii /hr. dt Fd., 1927, 21s-22 . 

VoGLiANO writes on Auori Testi Epicurti (P, Here. PJi'a in /hr. di Ld.. 1926, 3. -is. An important 
article by F. ZrcKER in Phdologvs. Lxxxil, 241-67, su.ggests rostor.itioiis of Philodemus -Zar T.hhcr- 
stellung uad Erklarung von P/dlodcms f. Buck irefi Trnirjjsiauiv. M>t to/,, .a Ec/nrs ntu ,■ d yriaiXoydv, 
(vgT](Tihnyia, fc/tiio'tXoynv. 

In Boll. Fd. Class. Vour.I.vNO reviews He Falco’s .irticl.. on the Trepi KoXnKdm of Plnlodemus see 
Journal, XIII, 87). Reviewed also by U. B.vssi in A'gyptus. mu 1927). 19s 9. 

Regina .Sch.xchter ha.s collected the fivigments of Philoilemu' irtpi nnirnaiTwr, Book 11, fiom rf,L/,/,,'„a 
Herculanensia. torn. x. in the periodical Eos =C<>/iiineiifarii Sacntafis /‘hdatagae /'olonoru m, cil, 
R. Oanszyniec, Th. Zielinski, Leopoli [ = Lwow].. xxix 1926 , 1.7 28. 

/lomancr. In I'hil. VAoch., 1927, 15,58, E. Hofmann notices Li iivikoVskI s h.iok on the Creek 
romance .see Jonraal, xiu, 8,). 


11. .1. .M. Milne. 



134 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 


2. Keligiox, Magic, Astrology. 

{lududiiig Texts.) 

(JcnernL ^’ol. lxxxii of Revue ties dudes juives coii-sists of Melanges in honour of I. Levi’s seventieth 
birthday, and opens with a bildiography of hi.s writings (we may note p. 23, on Alexander the Great in 
Jewish legend). Vol. vi of Jukrhuck fuv Liturgieivissenschaft includes as in previous years a valuable 
bibliography of liturgical material and has a careful criticism of Lietzmanx, Messe imd Herrenmahl, by 
0. Casel (209-1 7 >. The new edition of Religioa in Geschichte und Gegenwavt (Mohr: Tubingen, 1926-) 
includes a number of relevant articles, as for instance Alehemie by F. E. Strcxtz, 194-200; excellent), 
Alexandria, Ale.ra adri nische Theologie, AUegorie, Alphabet, and Aegypten, iv. 

Hopexer's Fontes has been reviewed by K. Preisexdaxz in GdOnwn, 1926, 478-81. 

E. F. Brick, Totentdl und Reelgerat, has been reviewed by £. Bickel in Phil. Woch., 1927, 721-6 
(qualified praise), A. D. XocK in Journ. Hell. Stud., XLVii (1927), 1.51-2, D. M. Robinsox in Aui. Journ. 
Arch., XXXI (1927), 132-3, K. Preisexdaxz in O.L.Z., xxx (1927), 235-7, Haas in Theol. Lit.-Z., 1926, 
505-8. 

E. Fa.scher, nPO'I’HTHS (Topelmann ; Gies,sen, 1927. 12 M.) discn.sses, pp. 76-101, the use of TrpotftrjTrjs 
to render “Egyptian priest.” It has been reviewed by J. ill. Creed in Journ. Theol. Stud., xxix, 57 f. 

Fh. Bilabel, in a review in Pltil. Woch., 1927, 836, promises a Corpus of papyrus texts important for 
religious history. 

K. Latte, Die Religion tier Romvr und der S'ynhretisimes der Kaiserzeit {Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebach, 
Heft 5; Mohr: Tiibingen, 1927. 4 M. 30, or in subscription, 3 M. 90), give.s an excellent collection of 
texts in translation. 

Pre-Ptoleuiaic. I leai'ii from a summary in Rev. hist, rel., XLt (1925), 261-2, that the late H. Basset 
in Melanges R. Ra.iset (Leroux: Paris, 1923', has published an elaborate study of the Libyan Ammon, 
regarding A. as a Libyan god, akin to Anien-ReC and a.ssimilated to the great divinities of successive 
conquering peoples. Of Ammon there is a judicious discussion by E. S. G. Robixsox, B.M.C. Cyrenaica, 
ccxxxiii-ix. 

Ptohinaic: Te.rts. In IN'. Kcxkel’s Vencaltungsatten aus spatptolenwischer Zeit {Arch. f. Pap., vill) 
we may remark nos. 11-13 (pp. 207-11) recording the deli\ ery of corn to the prie.sts at Tilothis and also 
for the adripa or “porridge” daily set like shewbread before the Xomeseis and Adrasteiai, “very great 
divinities.” 

H. 1. Bell’s suggestion {Gnuinon, 1926, 569; that was sold by the temple in U.P.Z., 98, is very 

interesting in this ounnection ; pre.suni.ibly the udrjpa was thought to have acquired .special virtues by 
this contagiuui (Bell's suggestion is approved by MTlckex in U.P.Z., l, 654). 

In P. Bovriant reviewed in ;; 3) we may here note no. 12, a letter dated 88 b.c. by Plato to the priests 
and others at Pathyris. Collart in his commentary has some notes (p. .59) on the loyalty of the priest- 
hoods to the Ptolemaic dynasty. 

U. IViLCKEX, Zu den Syrischen GOttern” {Festga.be fur Adolf Deissuiaiiu, 1-19; Mohr: Tubingen, 
1927; obtainable separately), first discu.s.ses the existing evidence for their cult in Egv-pt, explaining 
etrnygtvns in P. Paris, 10 {U.P.Z., I, no. 121) with reference to Lucian de dea Syria, 59, and comparing 
rd trriyixara Tov in Gal. 6. G, and then publishes P. Fz*eib. (6. 7, eaily 2nd cent, b.c., a complaint 

about a nocturnal attack on an ’ .\TapyaTi4ov in Philadelphia with mo.st instructive comments. 

General. E. K. Bev.xx, A History of Egypt under the Ptuleinaic Dynasty (noticed in § 4), gives, 
pp. 87-90, a good general sketch of religious conditions, 106-8 of the royal cult at Ptolemais, 127-31 of 
deification, 177-8 of the relations of the government and the native prie.sthoods, 296-9 of the Serapeum 
papyri in U.P.Z. 

L. R. Taylor, The “ Proslynesis’'' and the Hellenistic Ruler Cult {.I.H.S., xlvii, 1927, 53-62; cf. g 4), 
comments, p. 57.^4, on the Ptolemaic oath by the king’s daimon. In the Cult of Alexander at Alexandria 
{Class. Phil., xiil, 1927, 162-9;, she gives evidence for the identification of Alexander with Agathos Daimon. 

R. Herzog has some remarks on Ptolemaic cult in the course of a paper on Herodas in PhUologus, 
LXXXII : he holds that eEQNAAEA<I>QN on the coins from 270 onwards refers to the two pairs, Ptolemy I 
and Berenice on the one hand, and Ptolemy II and Arsinoe Philadelphos on the other ; the title Soter, 
originally applied to Ptolemy I in his lifetime in cultus outside Egypt and in private cultus in Egypt, 
became canonical and produced the fixed epithet whence Bto'i uSfXcjjoi was limited to Ptolemy II 

and Arsinoe (pp. 53-8;. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (l!)2G-19-27) ]35 

H. Jeanhaire, La poUtiqiie l•eli(!ie"se d’Antoiio- ut di‘ C/f'iqu'ifn’ (Iter. <i,-cli., xix, 11)24, >, 

how Antony and Cleopatra used religious prop,ig;uida. This able ,iii.l illimmiatiiig paj.er is eoinpl.'led by 
H. J. Rose, The Diqtaettn'e ot l)wif>/sos {Ami. Ai'ih. AniJn'^ At, 2.")-30', wbo has disiM\'ered counter- 
propaganda by Octavian in two stories preserved in IMutarch’s Lde nf Antmn/. 

R. Reitzea’Steia', D/'' //rVA-a/spse/e.',. /■('<’/)/■' /n/n</tc„, has appeared iii a tlnrd edition, nmeli revised 

and amplihed (Teubner, 1!J27 ; pp. viii-p438, with 2 plates. 14 M. unbound; l(i M. bouiub. The new 
edition is indispensable, e^'en to those who possess the tir-t or second. 1 would add here to niv review in 
Gnorao),, 1927, 64:1-6, only the remark that ReitzeasTkin's view that ripimKoi drSpfs in Philo corresponds 
to yvcocTTiKo'i drSpfc may be strengthened by a reference to a gloss in llosyehins. in, 2b‘i, 1, IPil, Sehniidt 
opuTiKi'w yvma-TiKuv. This admirably book lias been warmly praised by 11, .1. I!i.s|.. ,,, <■(,!.<< /I,,-., m,i 
( 1927), 2;14, and .///.&, XLVil . 1927}, 272. REiTZEX.sxniN s support ■ p. 21i), of the supplement ''Ap[pa,r ] 
r]K^i CTT epe in L .P.Z..^ LAX VII t, 44. is oppi isod by ii.cRKX, L rk ii ixtk‘'ti , I, I A \ er\' i n forest i ng apprei ia - 
tion has now appeared by von H.arxack, Tlful. Lit.-Z . 1927, :i)i4-.‘). 

L.. M. Woodward, in his reiiort on archaeologiial finds, notes J II. S.. xlvi, 1926, 249 Sat. re's drscoverv 
that on the Acropolis at Cyme the earlier cult of some goddess of fertility was reiilaced in the 2nii century 
B.c. by the worship of Isis and Osiris. 

E. Hoppe, Heron run Alvxandnn i Heruc-:, I..\II, bO-lO-’);, d.iting Heron in the .sei ond half of the 
second century n.c., deserves a mention here in view of Heron's penn.r -in-tlie-s!ot niachine for hol\ water 
and of his other pious inventions (for which cf. viii, 99)1 .uid I'Ms . 

W. vox Bi.Ssixg, Eine heJIenlrti-^che lir'inzefiijnr Jl. ■. (.!//,. ALuh., i, 192.'), 123 12 . discusses 

a figure in the Naples .Museum : it was meant to support a caiidel.dirnni. 

Imperial. No. 17 of the Cornell papyri I'rcviewed in g 3}, from Hibali, of the year 447 a.d., as restored 
hy Fr. Bil-Abel in P/u/. 11 oc/o, 192 < , 129o, gives, 11. 3^-9, an i.Mth by Hera kies a.s god of the iionie, [<ni tov 
Toi) i/o]p(of,) 6Pav 'HpaK[X6]a [e^ vyu'ois; ku\ dXqddai after that by the Emperor. 

P. Bouri'int, no. 41 o, is a yparprj 'Kpiaiu and records the purchase hy two priests of places as irrohurTui, 
and (col. iii) the purchase of a vrepaxpopia. CoLlart has a note '[). 12S, on Roiuan regulations iu the 
matter. 

E. Orth, Ein orphheher Pupi/nm : Phil. H'oe/o, 1927, 1460-71 , re-edits I*. Berol, 13426 bfi-l.'ii) a.d. ; 
first published by Schl'bart, Papi/rwhiini.le, 42, in Okrcke-Nordkx, Einhitii 4, i.\ , a irivtliological 
fragment on the death of Orpheus with some new conjeetures of his and two from Wii.amowitz. In 1. 9 f. 
read perhaps drd’ <Lr j [5r) pvqatKlaKos k.t.X., not as Orth.) 

In P. Oxy. 1380, 104 ff, F. CcjroxT, fma'P'r J- Po/o-o-p(o-opo.,-, I<i27, 197_,, proposes iv Ilfpo-ait 
’.Xraflrit' i,for .XardvTjv j,..(v Soiirnis Sm a iav. Hi. l<.))i-7. 

L. XXiLCKEX, .^it dtn “ .S'y /■(«'.’/< t'a Giittern. 3_., [il'oposes iv >t>iuviKi or -tKp, Svp[f]ui ((o) '= Stpiri; 

W. SpIEGELBErg, Der Week-rnf mi die niiiiiitUrhen (I'ltt'i- 'Arch. f. /oC, xxiii, 34Hi, reinark.s that 
Porphyry, Du ahat., iv, 9. aflbrds evidence for the continued practice in the 3rd century a.d. of greeting or 
awakening the deity of the temple in the morning. 

R. Mehlis, Antinovr-[)‘'iikiiiii nzen (PXP. IFoc/o, 1926, li4-)> . [Hits together ooin-tvpf-s rel-itiiig t<» the 
apotheosis of Antinous. 

A. O. Nock, Pagan hapttirnta in Tertajk la n iJinirn. J Ik a! . t'^fnd., xxviii, 289-9))', defends the XI.8,s: 
reading Pelnsiis in De Impt. a and explains it .as referring to the PH.i.d'i.n festival icdebrited on March 20 
in Rome. 

XL ScHEDE, Isiaproze.^sion i.xrrE.AOS. II. 60-1, with plate', imblishes a Potsdani relief showing ,a 
procession very like that described by ApnI. Met. xi, 1<»-11. 

J. Leipoldt-K. Reglixg, Arrhaologi.acher znr laiareligioii 'ih., I. 126-3)1, with .7 plates , reproduce the 
Herculaneum pictures and six relevant eoin-tyjies with bibliograpbx-. 

I. h RAX'K-K.AMEA*LTZKI, L her die II araer- .//.// Da n mnatiir des (Arina t Arrh. f. lick.. XXIV 1_4;^ iplotes 
Georgian and C.uic.isi.ui folklore parallels for the myth .as given by Plutarch; 1 feel this empiirv i.s citi.ited 
by the writer’s f.ulure to recognise that the t.ale as it there appears has sufi'ered Hellenistic tlcvelopment 

R. B.VRToClIXI, in He Ruggiero, Diztanara) rpagraurn tJi aiitiehitd ruitaiiie. iv, fisc :i Mb'))! 

86-91, collects the Latin epigrapliic cvnlence in convenient form. On her connection with the planet 
Sirius Guxdel has written in Pavhi-Viirrami. m a, .321-2. A dedication of .an image of Diana ai.rvi af 
ISIDl has been found at Tivoli ' Xrjiizie degt; .a, a.ri. 192)!. 417 . 

E. GhISI-AXZoXI, P Paetuariu ihlte Dii 'niita .Me.arand rine i Xatiziario .[rrh. Cuk..^ IV, 1927, 149--'uf;'i 
publishes a most import. int s.mctuary from Gyrene. On the evidence of a coin find Ghislaxzoxi dates it 



136 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 


ca. 350 A.D., and he is inclined to connect it with the Julianic re\dval. The finds include two Hecataea, a 
seated Cybele, the torso of an Eros, a group of Charites, a head of Mithras (PL xx, 7), a statuette of 
a priestess of Isis, a statue of Zeus Sarapis, and a most interesting statue of Isis with the lower part of 
her body swathed like a mummy (not later than first century A.D.), an Aphrodite, and a Libya with 
attributes of Isis. IVe have also a self predication by Isis in iambics, in an inscription dated 103 a.d., 
closely akin to the texts found at los and Andros, and fragments of a hymn in hexameters (published by 
Ci, Oliverio, ib., 201-12j. 

The finds have been di.scussed by F. CT’most, Knuvelles de'cmii-ertes u Cyrhip {Joura. des Sar., 1927, 
318-22!. He makes the illumin.rting suggestion that the supposed Isis is not the goddess, but an initiate 
playing her part, and therefore wearing divine robes, and swathed as a mummy because initiation was a 
mystic death ; he also shows that the statue illustrates the “ rite of the veiled hand,” as Dieterich called it. 

A. Taraiielli in his report on Sardinian discoveries {Xotizie degli scavi, 1926, 446-56) raises the 
que.stion (p. 4.53) whether the crypt called Farcere di S. Efisio was used by worshippers of Isis who fled 
from Rome as a result of the repre.ssive measures directed by Tiberius against their worship. 

H. Lehxer, Orientalische Mysterienhdte ini riinuseken Rheinland [Bonner Jahrhiicher, ccxxix, 1925, 
36-91 ; obtainable separately^, discusses, pp. 47-50, remains of Egyptian cults in his region ; specially 
valuable is his tre.itment (pp. 56-8) of the influence of the Oriental cults here on the native cults. He does 
not rate the imjiortance of the army high as a channel of Eastern beliefs. For a statuette of Harpocrates 
found in India cf. A. IV. L[awrence] in J.II.S., xlvi (1926), 263. 

R. Reitzexsteix, Weltuntergangsvorstelbmgen, 36 ff. [ = KyrkohntorUl- Arssknft, 1924, 164 f.), explains 
P. Fay. II a.s a Helleni.sation of an Oriental Descensus nd inferos myth and suggests col. iii 7 6 8e rbv drjbv 
els Kpablav (fiipar, 23 Xvypa (rapara b' [eljojad’ vvepOe y^t, 42 Kara yijs i^oa be. 

E. Peterson, Elf 6e6s eds Zirkusakkla /nation in Byzam [Thexol. Lit.-Z., 1927, 493-6), publishes some 
.addenda to his valuable EI2 0EO2, noticed here last year (xill, 89) and reviewed by K. Preisexdanz, 
O.L.Z., XXX (1927), 960-2. 

H. Leisegang, Der Bruder des ErlOsers (ArrE.\02, I, 24-33), studies a concept in the Hymn of the 
Soul in Acto Tho/nne and in Pistis /Sophia, and traces it to speculation of a Philonic type. His index to 
the editio niaior of Philo by CoHS and Wendlaxd deserves a mention here (pars i; Berlin, 1926; 
de Gruyter. Pp. viii + 338. 30 M.). That it does not cover the fragments and is not exhaustive is the 
fault of the times and not of the author (commended by 0. Stahlin in Phil. Woch., 1927, 8-13, cf. 
281-2), 

B. A, van Groningen, Insc/dptio dedicato/da Aegyptiaca [Mnemos., lv, 1927, 263-8), puts together 

three fragments of a dedication at Ooptos of which part was published by Preisigke in Samnielbuch, 5874 ; 
it is interesting for its de.'^cription of Sai-xpis as rbv 3roAt[€a Ala peyav \ 2npa7r[tv rbv (fiiK^OKala'apa 

(discus.sed by Groningen, p. 265) and for its reference to the Olympia kept at Alexandria. 

T. Grassi, Le hste tenipluri nelVEgitto greco-roinano secondo i papiri [Studi della souola papirologica, 
Yol. IV ; Parte iv: Milano — “Aegyptus”— 1926; pp. 72. 12 1. 50), is an excellent study of temple 
inventories. 

J. Vogt’s Terrakotten is commended by W. Schdbart, Deutsche Lit.-Z., 1927, 1301-2. 

lor E. Bickerji.ann, Ritiud/nord und Eselskult [Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wiss. d. J/ideutums, lxxi, 1927, 
171-264) and for the literature called forth by H. I. Bell’s Jews a/id Ch/-istians, I refer to 3 and 4. 

Magic. S. Eitrem has completed his Die vier EJle/uente in der Myste/denweihe [Synib. Oslo., v, 1927, 
39-59) ; this very interesting paper discusses the worship of the elements in Persia and Scythia and 
tendencies in the same direction in Greece. (For purification by the elements discussed (p. 55), add 

C. H. Blinkenberg, La chroni/iue du temple Lindien, p. 25 [341] ; a man hanged himself behind the 
cult-image, and on Delphi's bidding the Lindians removed the roof over the image and left it ea-re ca rpeh 
aX[i]oi yevavTai xa'i Tolf too irarpos ayv/.a6j). The phrase cited by Eitrem from Hyginus, Fab. 139, iit neque 
carlo /leqne terra neque inari mueniretur, seems to be a riddle which has become a myth.) In Varia [Syrnb. 
Oslo.. V, 86 f) he proposes some emendations on P. Leid. J. 395 IV (that edited by Dieterich, Abraxas, 
169 ff.). In Ko/iig Ann in Ups/xla und Kronos [Festskrift til Ej. Falk, Oslo, 1927, 245-61), he gives an 
interesting discussion of a Swedish parallel to the Kronos legend ; p. 25 I 3 he comments on 11. 2844 ff. of the 
Paris magical papyrus; p. 25:3, (.n 1. 1823 (significance of swallowing an object to heighten its magical 
properties). 

The late H. (rRESSM.vNN in Di/‘ Aufgahen der Wis.se/isehaft des nachbiblischen Judentums (in Zeitsekr. 
altt. 11 G«., .XLiii, 192.), 11) remarks justly that Jewish names in magic texts do not necessarily point 



BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (192G- 11)27) 127 


to Jewish practitioners of the art, and refers to Origen, Cuntra Cehniu, tv, 33, for magi who invoke tlie 
God of Alti'iiham, Isaac, and Jacoh ; ih. (11 fi ho does collect instances of Jewish niagicians. 

It should be mentioned here that hicoTi' in his IL'i-im tioi, il, tlh- 1.\ finds rhythmical structure akin to 
that of llyzantine hymns in P. Par. 1 11.“) -1100. 

L. Il.ttlltllir.vCHER in ft IffilO, explains (rurop^dfr/, in 1, 103 as met.ithesis for 

n-wnpixoiTj/. In Jh/u'Ik, v. So, he e.xplanis 1. :13o0. 

E. BiCKERJt.xxNy in a review in J’/tif. H'oc/i., 10^7, fill, gives pa[iyriis ilhistr.itions of the killing of ,in 
animal whose power one xvislics to tippropriate. 

K. Preiskxd-XXZ has remarked 'Si/mh. Osin., iv, t;i)-l ■ th.it P. < »'lo 3 is wrhally identic, d with 
P. Par. 1G3:)-I09.‘i. 

L. DeI'BNER .supports II.VDEIIM.VCHER’s deienL*c of jltlTprlyoo' KCKi'dO' 111 Ari.st. A''///., Joy, b\' I Iting 

P. Oslo i, 233 /Sarpn^ov rf)pnvvov (}I''i'nu‘S, Exit, I 2fs i ; \\ . IvR.XXZ 'lit., 2.7t! adduces ahso yeyHi'cs in 

Plato, 101 c. 

Camprell Boxser, Tracer of Thaniniiinnfii' T'rhniq",; t/oj Miroi-hs Unrr. Tl.i:ol A’- <■., x.\, liijy, 
171— Bi:. eompare.s sariva^^v, arpi/d^a^ in 7. 34, B. 12 r./. draor-, with P. P.tr. 2192, 7t)*’>tt., Lcid, 

IV. 21-911'. and for seii.se with P. Par. .337, 62811'. and explains tvf.-ipipuivTr, in Marl 11. 4 ami (I’lSpipiimiTo 
in Jolij! 11. 33 of inspired frenzy, comparing the historian Menander xiv. 3^1, Bonn , irnpiffv fm rcr 
ill P. Par. G20ft'., .lud Pint. De dej. e/'oc., p. 437ic; he thus supports the Western te.xt of .lA/r/ I. 41 3. 

I have not seen J. IV. Haler, />('<• Dhiinhn im noi-dl I'-h’ n t’ni.ildhOiniis nud /Arc /„ d, r 

sogeiKXi'iitfii MithrusUt'irgie U'jitr. :. hid. n. A''/ , if : Kolilhamnier. Stuttgart : pp 2.'i, 1 .M. so ,, 

Th. Hopfxer, Dd K< nd‘‘rno>dni'n In d'sn tji'o'i'hisch -tnig^>ti.<cl‘''n Zoidinrinf^nir} in Root, d tl' Kf’tth‘< 
dtiditas ii lo iidmoim de X. P. Koiid'iPif:, 192G, 07)-74 , studies the amient .soun cs in the imlit of modern 
practical knowledge of hypra I'ls. 

K. Herzoo, [he Z'ittheri/iitei' des Sii[ihi'tin //essiscAc V,hifti:r f'tr VoUd. -iindt', xxv, 192fi, 217 29 , explains 
the title ral ywdiKes (u rdv B(uv (pcivn as " Women who say that they i .iiise Hecate to come forth 

(i.e. appear and give as.si'tanee in love-magic rcfeis to it the anonymous citation in I’lut,, !>'■ mj,! rt.iilinitf, 
p. 17 Gb, and gives an able reconstruction of the rite. IVc may cotnp.n-e the inxocation in (friih.. .1/','/, 
900 fti, discussed .A Af./j'., Xtvi, o0-3, wliich supports the placing here of fr. 8 'concerning tlie sai ntu e of 
a dog', before the invocation. This able paper is important as confirming the view that the magic of 
Theocr. li substantially follows tlwt of iSophron. 

S. Eitrem, Ptijji/id Osloenses, I, has been reviewed by K. Pueisendanz, 0 L.Z., x.xx 1927 , '.19-100, 
C. JoUGUET, Jijiirn. dt’S .S'or., 1928, 32-3; for other reviews, cf. J-v/yy/A/.-x viii 1927;, 2i i8. 

F. Dornseife, Da.s Alph'ilx.t in MgsttI, vml M'i'iif. i' reviewed la 1>. Hai i.o in PltJ. ir.«A., 192G, 
1089-92, 0. M'hxreich in Deiitnhf l.it.-Z.. 1927. 24f*. M. Iilrrx in dnnni. d'S Sot.. 1927, 2^1-2 , 
H. IIefpinii in Hts.ds.ht PJatti.r, xxiv, 1^3 f. with .iddcnd.i , BidziiaH'KI in Thfl. Idt.-Z.. 1927. l'.)7. 

K. PreisEXd.vxz, ALt‘ph'ilo.i, has hcen warmly praised by S. Kitri.m in '/cowoc. 1927. 17i; 9 with 
addenda;. J. Leipoldt in .AITEAOS, li, 159. H. LeIseoam. in o.L.Z.. xxx 1927 . 5i;7. 

F. Lexa, Lo iiftgle dttvi I'Erttfptt tiittd-itite, is cotnmcn<lcd by F. Clmont in Poe. helg,. de phd. dh't.d., 
VI ■'1927 . 4.')9-G0. H. (4. Laxoe in fhtit.sfh.- Lit.-Z‘tt . 1927, 310 -h, p. 1 '[f.kiei;.s] in Atoil. A’of/oic/, xlv 
('1027 1, 12i)-32, M. A, M[rKliAY] in Artdtut 1927, 27 9. 

H. R.xnke reviews in TlotA. JaI.-Z.. BiJi. 32. f >. Brink, Ijn noKiist'Itt R. 0 t-ii'nis ton dt tt A'ltttn tnc. iit 
lift oiitji' Eifiiptf H. J. P.iris- Aiiistcrd.im, lOJ.'x, wtneh I liaxe not seen. 

lIio-iiii‘tifn. cte. ScoTl's edition is reviewed by H. IlM.Lii.xYE in Amd lltdltntil . xi.iv ' lOJGi. 409 -12. 
A. -It'LIc'HER in Tht't,!. Et.-Z.. 1SI27. 175-7 ; v<»]. 2 by Kkitzi.n.sTEIN in O nftnuni . 1927. 2GG-,s3 giving in 
cfl'ect a eommentary on C. H. i ; vols. 1 ami 2 by AI, lliBEtirs in Z-itit. r. K. <1 , xi.v 192G . note 

also his review of ( 1. ( h X-, IVEsENnoNK. Urmt i.ich th"! Si.l, n, <!• r irnitniltfn Ch. rlifti'i'titn/.iii T/ool. I/it.-Z . 
1927, 243-4 ; voh 2 la' A. 1). N<n K in Jotintol. xiii, 2G9 ; \-,,l. 3 by II. .1. llosi: in •l.lt.S.. xvi '192'; . 13i;-7 ; 
vol'. 2 ,iiid 3 .uid l!i!.xrMN(,ER s dis-ert.ition by F. Pkisteii in /Vo/ Wtuh., 1!»27. alH.yii: \ol. 3 Bv 
PuECH in Rtf. t'f. ttttf, xxi.x BI27 , llo-lt:. H. BkisKoxmi in n.L.Z , xxx 1927 . 11, A. i). X[chk] in 
.J.ILS.wwi 1!I27 . 1.51. 

IiEnzKN'TEiN-.8( haeuer, Sttitld-it, has been reviewed by K. Pkf.iskndanz in O.L.Z.. xxx 1927 . 7S9 -<1.5. 

IV, .1. M ilsijn, Thtt toreer t.f thf pfitphni Iltrnititt Iftirr. Thod. Rff.. .\x. 1927. 21-G2 , decides, pp. 37 — 12, 
tb.it II. in wnnii'g the hfth vi~iou bad soniething like the Pni noi ndres Before him. 

The Lite H. GhI'sMsnn. Eoffiip. iii fliifnfi‘.t< in IJfhretr pnipltefii Ahtnm. TIool. Stud.. XXVII, 2 II -.51;, 
throws nil ideiit.il light on the I’otters or.n-h' in the lourse of an illninin.itnig di'i ussion. 

Juuni. of Egypt, Arch. xiv. 


138 BIBLIOGEAPHY: GEAECO-EOMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 

A. D. XocK, Herrnetica (Journ. Theol. Stud., xxix, 41-3), reads dXoyfja-ai in C. H. v, 10, and brackets 
Kndas oySnd^a o i6i<nTiire in XIII, 15. In Hagiographica {ih., XXVIII, 409-17) he discus.se.s the 

Coiif^^do S. Q/priani, explaining the initiation-scene on Mount Olympus from Hermetic and other theo- 
sophical parallels, and trCitting oppositional .stories on the rivalry of Christians and pagans. 

The paper of Robbins mentioned under Astrology is of importance for Hermetism. 

Astrology. K. Dietericii, Hellenistische Volksreligion und hyzanttauch-neygncrhische I oHsgluuhe, 
I Tril (ArrK.tOS, I, 2-28; II, 69-73), is so far concerned with astrological belief and includes a full stuily 
of 

Of great importance is F. E. Robbis.s, A Aden- Astrological Treatise: Michigan Papyrus AA. 1 {Cla.ss. 
Phil., .xxii, 1927, l-4.j). A.sklepii>s is quoted as an authority for the theory of the eight tottoi, i, 19, 
p. 14, II. 18 ff. 

Some notes on this pajwrus have been published by A. E, Hou.sman in Class. Phil., xxii / 1927 ), 2oi -03. 

1)EL.\TTE, Cat. Cod. astr. gr., X, i.s commended by W. Kroli. in Phil. Woch., 1926, 1076-7. 

F. H. CoLsox, The fVeeh, is reviewed by R. Kkeglinger in Per. hist, rel., xciii (1926), 335-6, J. M. 
Creed in Journ. Theol. Stud., xxviii, 328. 

Boll, Sternglauhe und Stcrndeutung, is reviewed by M. Piepeb in O.L.Z., xxx (1927), 1046-9, B. A. 
Mi ller in Phd. Woch., 1927, 592-3. 

F. OisixoER, Der Olohvs, is reviewed by II. Philipp in Phil. Woch., 1927, 1151-2. 

H. (1ress.m,\xx, Die la-llenistische (lest ini religion, is reviewed by Mh Ex.sslix in Hist. Zeits., c'xxxvi 
(1927'), 416, K. H. E. de Joxo in Mvsemn, 1927 (Aug.-Sept.), 312. 

J. (I. IV. il. DE Yreese, Petron .10 und die Astrologie (Inaug.-Diss. Amsterdam. H. J. Pari.s, Amster- 
dam, 1927. Pp. xvi 4-269 with one plate. 4 fl. 50), gives an elaborate astrological commentary on this 
chapter of the Cena. VTiilo some of his interpretation.s of Petronius are dubious, the collection of material 
i.s welcome. Reviewed by IV. Kroll in Phil. Woeh., 1927, 904-5. 

P. IVriLLErillER, Cirque et astrologie, {Mel. areh. hist., iLiv, 1927, 184-209), draws attention to C.C.A.G. 
V, 3. 127-8, and publishes with translation and full comment unprinted texts of the same sort from 
Ambrosianus C 222 inf fol. 42 (13th cent.) and Parisinus graecus 2423 fol. 17 verso (12th cent.), the 
latter being long <ind more inqiortant. All three are memoranda for the astrologer to enable him rapidly 
to predict which colour would win in the Circus ; the third quotes a special method hy d ’ .We^avhpivos 
(Keiiios &euS(o))p' ot) TroXvTrapdraTos- fVi rg (TTioTrjgg yevopevos sa'i paWov eVi ttXIov ra vep'i Toii iTnrolipoploo 
iruXvnpaypoiirjo-as, an Otherwise unknown authority. The methods are ba.sed in part on the familiar 
colours ascrii>ed to pLinet-s (see also p. 188, rov Si '^HXtou rives piv fieg^eiv ria povcriia tiTTeejigvtivTo Siii to 
nvpiiSes, oi nXeiovs Si saXovri peerirgv rrevoigKatn u>s pi{(T 0 v) sa'i koivov iltTripa, where the theory of the 
sun's central (i(.isiticin is used (cf. C. H. xvi, 7, and Cumont, La Theologie solaire ; I prefer tliis to translating 
pia-ov as AVuii.leu.mier, “un astro mixte et oommun”). WuiLi.EtJiiiER argues that the predictions go 
l-iack to K(jman time.s, and compares de circo astrologos in Cic. de die. i, 134 and the co.smio .symbolism 
of the circus in Lydus, etc. 

Christianity. P. Bov riant bsee § 3'. contains: 2, Ps. 39-41, 4th cent, leaf of papyrus codex; 3, Hondh' 
(noticed in (Jiiouion, 1927, 645-6), si.x fragments of roll, 5th cent.; 4, Homily, 6th cent, (roll or codex?); 
25, Christian letter, 5th cent. 

O.ey. Pap. xx'll includes 2065 (Ps. xc, parchment. 5th-6th cent.) ; 2066 (fragment of Eccl. vi, vii, papyrus, 
5th -6th cent); 2067 CNicene Creed, omitting g kthttov in anathema clause, jjapyrus, 5th cent.); 2068 
(possibly liturgical fragments, papyrus-roll, 4th cent.); 2069 (apocalyptic fragment, papyrms codex, late 
4th cent.) ; 2070 (Christian treatise in dialogue form, directed against the Jews, papyrus, late 3rd cent.) ; 
2071 (fragment of dialogue, one speaker d ’Ada[i/dfr(os], 6th cent.); 2072 (fragment of apology, late 3rd 
cent.); 2073 (fragment of homily, papjTus, late 4th cent.); 2074 f apostrophe, probably to Mhsdom, in 
elaborate Du-stil, papyrus, 5th cent.). 

Vol. VIII, Ease. II of P.S.I. (see § 3 below) contains two Psalter texts: no. 921 verso, the early fragment 
noted last year {.Journal, xiii, 92\ and no. 980, a 3rd-4th cent, papyrus containing Ps. 143. 14-148, 3. 

A. H. S.XLOXius, Die grieckischen Handschriftenfragmente des Meven Testaments in den Staatlkhen 
Museen zn Berlin {Z. neat. Wiss., xxTi, 1927, 97-119) publishes with notes and two plates seven vellum 
fragments, six unpubli.shed (1 of Mattheiv, 1 Mark, 2 John, 3 Acts) and mentions one other Cospel frag- 
ment, one Acts, and one of 1 Them. 

H. A. S.xxDERs, An early papyrus fragment of the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Michigan Collection 
{Harr. Theol. Pier., xix, 1926, 215-26, with txvo plates), publishes P. Mich. 1570, which he dates near the 



BIBLIOGEAPHY : GBAECO-BUiMAN EGYPT (lU JO- 1 'J-J7) i;!!) 

end of tlie 3rd century; it gives Motth. xxvi, 19-52, in ,t “western' text. Tlie ,sune writer imlilislic'- 
.1 paij^rv.-i t I't I tj'iai- tit of iti the Michigov CoRef^tion [I/ttrr. Tltenl. Itee.^ XX, 1927, 1 19. with t\vi> 

tacsimilos), 1'. Mich. 1571, dated un script 2<I()-.5(J, cniitains ,lc?s xviii, 27 xix in ,i “Western" text. 
Sanders reni.irks on the predominance of thc-se tc'xts in tliinl century fragments from iveypt. This 
fragment has since been discussed by A. C. Clark, The Michiijon fr<i<imei,t «/ the .bt.< [.huini. Thent Stud., 
XXIX, 18-28). 

Camiuiell Bonner, ^1 aeie fruijmeut ot the Sheftheed o1 Jlerttuxs [Mo h njtt e fujni.'. 1 tl 1 lh>tre. I'heut. 
/tee., XX, 1927, 105-16, with two plates], publi.shes a tc.xt of the cml of ni.indate li ,ind the tieginning ol m, 
approxiiuatclv of the time of ilarcus Aurelius, with peculi.ir readings. 

7'he J/aiia.tteei/ of E/iip/uiiiius and ATa- 'I'e.rt.e from (he i/oonMery of St MueariiK. by II. (1. K\ i mn- 
W'hite, 7V. E. Crum, and II. E. WTnlock are reviewed with high pr.ii'e by K (' I'.i hki i r. ./oa,-,/. '/'he, ft. 
Stud., .xxviii, 22()-.7 ^instructive coinnient), and E. .1. CoonsrEEH, ./oa/v/o^ ot Itet iijii,,,, \ii 1927 . )s2 3, 
the first by H. Leclercij in Journal, xiii, 25-7. See too in S 3. 

The Mouasterieii of ^ytldi'a Xatruu, i, is reviewed by De L.vcy D'Ekauy in Jouruot, xm 1927 . I 2s 9. 

I have not yet .seen H. A. .S.ynders and C. Schmidt, The Minor I'roph. f.< in tit. /-tv, r ( 'otl, , tim, mid the 
Berlin Fraijtneu.t of Geae.ds (Univ. of Michigan .Studies, Iluiuanistic Series, vol. xxi. Mucniillaii < 'laiip.iny. 
N.Y., 1927. Pp. -xiii+436. 7 plates;. 

E. Burrow.s, D.ei/rhyu.ehu.s Loyion ' /.Vo; i r (Jouru. Tto.ol. Stud., xxvni, |t^i> , ipiotc' 'r.ilniudie p.imlhls 
for hidden truth being conip.ired with a pearl which must be extracted from its 'hell, siiggcsiinc th.ii 
\i6ov is a mistranslation for .shell. P. Oxy. 840 has been di.scussod by K. Kiooi.np.ach, Z t. m ut. IIV-s.. 
XXV, 140 ft'. 

S. G. Mehcati, Pc'. 00 rieonoxiuto nel Bopiro i..:0 (Bildo", viii, 1927,06 , couti ibutc' .i point on ,i 
papyrus mentioned in Journal, xni, 92. 739 in his title is .i slip for 7.59 vor.'o. 

For Wb E. Chum’s important Sotue further Mehtiau dorumeuta ‘JouTual, xiii, 1927, 19 26, I must 
refer to ); 3. 

S. G. Mercati, Bit fraiiimeiito della htunjia t.'leuieuti ua in papiro Aeyypt u.<, \iil, 1927, I" 2 . identi- 
ties P. Kainer 19937, od. 'WesSEI.y in I'atr. Or., xvill, 434, .i' from the ‘‘.lute .^ain tus of the hturgy in 
Apost. Coast., VIII. 

H. Lietzmann, Bill, liturgiseher Papyrus des Berliuer Mus‘.uu,s f'estgale jur Adolf Julie/, ir, 213 28; 
Mohr, Tubingen, 1927 >, publishes with fac.simile P. Berol. 13918 nn 1. 1 read 7Tol]^l^vcl .uid repub- 

lishes P. Heidelb. 2 ‘' = Ijilabel, P. /iad., iv, no. .58^. Both belong to the la.sf part of the Kucliarist. and 
repre.seut older and simpler types of liturgy which survived in the country after the othei.d victory of the 
liturgy of St. Mark. 

L. St. P. Cirard publishes, witli a translation, an o-tracon containing a fr.ignient of a m.egical liturgy. 
It con.sists of adjurations to variou.. angels, to the suii, the four winds, etc. Cu fra.yuooit dr litiirgie iu,igl,po; 
eopte sur odra/eou. in Amt. d't Serr., xxvii, 1927, 62-8. 

C. Schmidt, Studien zu den adteu. Petrusalrtea, ii. Die Kompr,.Jii,r,i 7,. f. Kiri.he,ig,..sehiel,ie, X.F., \iii, 
481-513) deals incidentally with P. Oxy. 849. Ills tr.uislation of /'{.■!({< Sop/da i' comniended by 1!. Violei, 
TheoL Lit.-Z., 1927, 7. 

For H. Delehaye, La persoanal ite hi.dorhpue d‘ S. Pavd d< ThUu .s I Anal, /loll., xiiv, 1926, 64 9 , and 
his 15c laedite de Saint Jean T Autaouier. see 4, 

AV. Telfer, ''Bees'-' in Clement of Alexandria (Jouru. T/aol. Stud., xxviil. l(i7-7.8 , is .m instructive 
study of Clementine sjndxilism. Telfer rightly rejects the view that there m htiirgii ,il alhi'ion iu 
Paedag., i, vi 0,1 fin. 

P. Alfaric, Onostiqi'es et gu.osticisme (Rer. hi.st. rel., xcill, Pi26, ln8-]5;, is a penetrating critiipie of 
1)E F.vye's book noticed Jouruat, xil, 316. It has been reviewed also hy .1. Curi'KNs m At r. dhio. ,ert. xxn 
1926 , 822-6, H. Leisegang in (t.I^.Z., xxix . 1926;, 471-2, F. Eoof.s, T/ool. Lit.-Z., 1926, 361 -s , .uhnir.ible 
survey,. 

L. Th. LeeoRT, S. Paehonie et Amuti-em-ope (Le Muston, XL. 1927, 6.5-74 . jKuiits out a p.ir.illel between 
P. s /tide and old Egyptian proverbs, and urges that in a nieasiire old Egy[iti,in liter.itiire lives on in Coptic. 

I h.ixe not seen Denys Gokce. La " lectio dirimi " des orhjini s du efaotdtisme a S, HeimU , t Caesiodorc 
I Picard, 1295: 20 fr.; or (4. Baruy, Im vie ehretienue aux III" et I\ ' .siie/r.s .Laprfi Aw papyru.,, , Rreue 
apologftiipi.e, XLI, 1926, 643-51, 707-21 ; noted in Byz. Zeit., xxvi, 432 . 

•J. Leiseoam. rcYiews in Phd. 'A'oeh., 1927, 306-7, P. Hkniihix, />e Ale.r,i,t,irljno he hoerislare/i 
Busilides. E' a liijdr'iije tot tie g, sehiedenis tier Gno.su i Auisterdaiii, 1926, 11. .1. P.iris. Pp. xii + 127 , which 


18—2 


140 BIBLIOGEAPHY: GRAECO-EOMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 

is inaccessible to rue. To judge from the review it would appear to contain material of use but not to be 
very conclusive. See al-so in ^ 4. 

J. LniiRETox, Bulhiin cfUixt. di’s origines cJu-etiennen (in Rcch. dc Sc. lic].^ June-Aug. .329-()0), 

is concei'iied iiifci' alin with ])a]>yrus evidence; on p. 331 n. he refers to an unpublished papyrus. 

C. I)r.L (hi.cNiiE, in a short review of P. Oxy. xvi, propo.ses a restoration of P. 1927, a liturgical text 
{RU-. ladn-Gcec. Ihd.. xi, 1927, 165). 

Ton der Goetz, in reviewing Lietzm.xnx, Messe und Rerrenmaid (TheoL Lit.-Z.. 1927, 149-51), has 
some remarks on the Der Balyzeh liturgical papyrus. He thinks that the invocation n-Xij/xoa-or rjfias 
■n-feifinTos aycov (in place of the usual irXripaxrov Trjv dvulav ravTTjv tt. a.} represents an older form, 
whereas LiETZM.iXX urged (j)p. 74-5) that t. 6. t. wa.s earlier. 

H. Deensixo, in reviewing Bil.vbel, Koptisc/ie Fragmcnte iiher die Beijrx uder des Mimicluiisinua, in 
Th'cJ. Lit.-Z., 1926, 18.5, regards the fragments as “eine glos.siorte Kezonsion des Stiiekcs vi 22 Endo bis 
24 aus Cyrills Cateche.se” and publishes some suggestions on readings. 

A. D. Nock. 


3. Publications of Nox-Literary Texts. 

{X.B. MUcdlaneons notes and corrections of documents preriouslg pehlished nre phtced in 9 helov:. 

Rerieu-s ore noticed here.) 

rioRiiioic-Rinontine. Part i of the third volume of the Sommeibuch, whose publication was recorded 
last year, has been reviewed by J. U'olff (O.L.Z., xxx, 1927, 1063-4; and W, Schubaex {Gnomon, ill, 
1927, 180-1 ; laudatory). 

I know only from the bibliography in Aegyptv.s (vill, 208, no. 6143) a volume, probably a manual for 
.schools or university students, by W. Schubart, Griechisehe Popyri: Urlcundeii und Drufe vom .J. Jk. v. 
Chr. bis ins S. Jh. n. Chr., Au.'gew. u. erkl. Text; Kommontar, Bielefeld, AVelliagcn u. Klasing, 1027. ” 

P. Cornell i, whose appearance was noted la.st year, has been reviewed by Wilckex {Archie, viii, 294-8 ; 
valuable; numerous corrections and suggestions), S. R[eix.vch] {Rer. Arch., .xxv, 1027, 401 ; this part is 
not at present acce.ssible to me), W. Schubart {Gnomon, iii, 1927, 552-5; very severe), J. G. Milxe 
{J.R.S., XVI, 1926, 275-6), H. B. van Hoesex {Am. Jouni. Phil., xxxi, 1927, 277), F. Bil.abel {Phil. 
Vi'och., XLVii, 1927, 1294-7; favourable on the whole; some sugge.stion.s), and H. I. Bell {Class. Rev., 
XLi, 1927, 188 and J.H.S., xlvii, 1927, 281-2). 

Hombekt’s pulilication of miscellaneous texts {Journal, xill, 97) has been reviewed by Wilckex 
{Archie, viii, 298-302; favourable; valuable suggestions), Schubart {Phil. Woch., xlvii, 1927, 16-17; 
suggo.stioiis) and E. Kuhx {O.L Z., xxx, 1927, 1064-5), and part iv of P. Baden by F. Z[ncKER] {By:. Z., 
xxvii, 1927, 174-5), E. Kiesslixo {Phil. WocL, xlvii, 1927, 684-5) and Lehmaxx-Haupt {Klio, xxi, 1926, 
110-12; all favourable). 

The .second fasciculus, completing Vol. vui, of P.S.I. has been is.sued during the year, and contains 
nos. 921-1000. As one or two Ptolemaic papyri are included it is noticed here, but the majority of the 
texts are of the Roman and Byzantine periods. The tir.st section, nos. 921-939, consi.sts of the Alexandria 
papyri edited by M. Nors.v {Journal, xili, 100), who.se edition is here reprinted. Of the remainder the 
majority come from Oxyrhynchu.s. Many are fragmentary or of inferior interest, but others are com- 
ILiratively well preserved, and there are several which contain material of value. Sjiecial reference may be 
made to nos. 953-956, a usefid series of accounts from the Apion archive, .supplementing those in P. Oxy. 
XVI ; 961. part of a composite roll containing a lease of geese dated a.d. 176 and a receipt dated a.d. 178 ; 
963, a lease of an orhiopolion dated A.D. 581; 968, a rather interesting late Ptolemaic private letter; and 
975, 976, which are re-editions respectively of 504 and 632, fi'om the Zeno archive. There are also some 
ostraca, edited by Viereck. Indexes for the whole volume follow. The part contains also some literary 
text.s and two P.salter fragments, which are noticed in 1 and 2 above. Pnhhlicazioni della Socictd 
Italiana: Papiri greci e latini, Vol. viii, Fa.sc. ll. Firenze, Auonima Libraria Italiana, 1927. Pp. 89-274. 
L. 120. The previous part has been reviewed by F. Z[ucker] {Byz. Z., xxvii, 1927, 176-7). 

An important volume of papyrus texts, which has been edited by P. Cullart, contains both literary 
works (noticed in §§ 1 and 2 above) and documents, the latter ranging in date from the 2nd century B.c. to the 
5th or 6th century of our era but for the most part belonging to the Roman period. These are the Bouriant 
papyri, a collection which wa.s formed a considerable time ago and several texts of which had previ<iusly 
been edited separately. Among the documents this is the case with nos. 10-12, which are letters by Plato 



BIBLIOCIEAPHY: GBAf:C( )-JlOMAN EGYPT (IDJC. HI 


found at Pathyri^, and 20, the well-known rcjiort of a l,i\v-caM‘ hefore the Jurilo "< al Alexandria I'dited hy 
CuLLIKET .iiid Jouni nr in the first vohune of the -l/-e/oV. The reaMin for the seleition ..t Ihe-e pieie- wa-. 
of eour--e their special interest, and it is yood to liaxe them here eolleetoil and nide.xeil . hiil l.eside^ them 
there ,ire several documents of considerahle xahux fiom the admim-t rat i\ e pomi el \ lew tiie mosi 
important is certainly no. 42. a long and mostly well jire-erved terrier and t.ixins roll relitinc to lliei.i 
Xe.sos and neighhoiu'iiig localitii's in the Favyum. Aalu.dilein itsidf, it reiene'.in .iddi'd i.diic from tin' 
eery detailed and c. ireful editorship of ColLirt, who hriiiu's out of it a ereal .imouiil of inlia'iii ition a- to 
the categories of land, their exploitation and t.ixation In human intere'-r the liist jila* e i^ la id h\ no. _’.i. 
a letter from Apamea in tsyri.i, in which an Ivgyptian Christian .girl intornis her .oint .it I optio of liei 
mother’s death. Thi.s touching letter deserves and will prohahly oht.un .i pl.iee in .iiis fulute edition of 
Fkissm.vxn s Lii-ht I'om along with the other more intimate e.xamples of the t .r.iei o-lvgi p'l.oi a lter. 

Several of the other nou-litciMry texts are of value .ind interest, hut those mentioned ate piolMl.ly 
the outstanding items. Les PopyruA B’lvrvmt, Paris, ( •liampion, lOdC. I'p. 241. 1 pliti-. .\ \,i!nd.le 

review by IVilcken, Aixhir, viii, 3u2-.'t. 

PtolenatP. The first two volumes of Ed, gar’s publication of the C'.nro Zeno pa].,\ri P Cairo Zenon 
who.se a}ipcarance was noted hist year, arc reviewed by Wir.tKhts id/‘'//o‘, \iii, 2 , i s., . 

A. PuECH {Jnvru. de.< .y'ov/af.s, l!l2fl, 274-.-. . A single Zeim text from the P.ritisli 

been edited by If. I. Pi.i.L. It is ,ui mlercstnig letter from Apollonius to Zem. .mnoun. nia 
theoi'oi from Argos aiul amb.issadors from Itieri.sades, no doiibt 1 .leris.ide- 1 1. King 
the King to see the sights of the Arsinoite nomo. It is d.ited in 2.41 n.c. ,s,-//C-o ,, 

the Third Centioy m Symho/'ie 0Po.-esei<,\ . The Zcim p.ipxrus edited by Hrs ] ./. 

is reviewed by Wilcken viii. 

W. L. AVestermann h<L'' aiioth'-r tli'' 11 g' h -gi 

interesting <ind well pre-'Orved IfEi'-e — or ratiifi* it -i d"< ntiit^iit r'-v-irdiii'i lii iLTatioii ai i-Brj < ' it - >1 .1 it* ^ . 
which includes '1* a opy <.f the it>clf, (2, an acH>un* .>t 'ivni, rtf. owin- b^ tlir ]( ->. r-. 

i'3) directions to Zcnn\ agent for tlie conduct of tin* <m,sc. Tlic whole i- wrll rdited l-\ Wi.siiPMWs with 

a detailed coimncntarv. and .1 tacsiinile i- giveti. .1 jAnn thp E<taf- oi J/, /.o/., m M',n. .b/o/v 


Old \'ol I by 
i.llei t loll ll.is 

'll ' if 

f i;os],o| I),., -cut by 

',-,'"1, XIII. !U; 


liv 1 > 


Aeod. in Ronl-. VI flh-7 g 21 pp., 2 plates. 

H. I. Bell has publi.slied some Ptolcm-iic wa.xcd tahlets. p.nt of -I 

m 1889-00 anil now in Cniversity (.'ollege, London. They arc of .special iiitcro't as hcing tiie e.nlii.st 

examples of such tablets yet found in Egypt ,nid aKo bec.iuso th<' wax in tw,. cases is ,.ol„mvd red .is 

usual, black; but the coiitetits are also hy no means witliout interest. They (ontain ,ie, omits, winch 
clearly relate in part to .i journey to the Delta; .nid in a shm-t .irtich- .nme.xed to the pul.ln ..tioi, I'l ii;ii 
develojis, porhajis more ingeniously th.ui convincingly, tlm view th.it tlie |•.■fi•l■en' e w.is to ,i juriin p.u t , of 

schoolboys. Wuxed TiUeP of the T/urd r-id.iry r.e .. and .1 I't'd.jn.oi. 11, lid.,,,, in /nm/.h I'.i27. 

Sept., t)5-74, aiul 75-0. 

A publication by P. JcvcoCET of a Magdol.i papyrus is at present in ■cce.ssible to me but 's rel'c ied to 
in the liibliography in Jiy/y/da--. vili. 20^1 im. blSu . I'n’’ cm/eD/, ,h .I/.e/,/.,/,/. in A'...- o//./ 

l{<f Ulni’i inj, Milano, Ul27, 


F. ZuCKEH has published an interesting letter d.ited in t he \ ear 22ti n c. It m addre-scd to the w riter .s 
sisters ,uid U'k.s for further inform.itmn siipplement.iry to that cont. lined in .m Lrfe^e.' in .1 dispute 
concernin.g an inheut.inee. It is juristic. dly of some v.ihu'. A facsimile is given t, f 
uh'ritii.ipfixhxr llepeeft ons ehieir ErhM,; d e. J. r. Ch,\, in Oi,-/. /ti- ,-i-f\<r<' hru'f. HF .s( 1. 

During the ye.ir under review Part .3 of the Freihnrg p.ijivri, edited by . 1 . I’.xi! rsi n .ind, .iftcr his .Icat ii. 
prcfiared for iiuhlication by U. ’Wilckex, lia.s apjieared. P.xrTsch's M.^.. .it the j.re]i.uMtion of which he h.id 
xvorked for sever.d years m .such time .is he eoiild sjiarc from other oeeiipations, w.is .diiiost re.idy toi 
puhlK.ition, hut Wii I Ki.N h id undertaken to commnnii .ite certain eorrei tious of his own in .m ,ip|iendix. 
L.iter revisions vielded fnither readings, .dfeetnig radieallv in some <-.ises the nitorpiet.ition of the 
documents; ,iiid e\ entually it w.is decided, in consultation with Ditxm.NWiT/. to publish Pwiisi n ,s .MS. 
unaltered and to add .ni ajipeiidix bn tu.illy longer than I’.XKTscn s pm tmii of the m 'I iniie ni w hn h U n 1 KK.v 
states the results of hi' revision and his own iiiterpri't.itimi wherever this diverges ti'Uii th.it of P.vutM'H. 
The decision, in the cireniiistanees, was perhaps jnstitiod, but it eertainly ent.iils great iiieouvenieiices. 
Parts' h's comment, irv, obvioii'ly of gieat importance in \iew of hm m.isterv of llie subject, is not in- 
freipiently "in the ,iir ' hee.nise. on looking at the .-quiendix, one finds th.it the re.ehngs on whiili his 
views were based c.imiot lie maint.iined ; .ind one has contimiallx to turn from text to apiieiidi.c 111 order 



142 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-EUMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 

to discover whiit the true reading is. But the position was certainly a difficult one, and it goes without 
saying that a work which contains the results of the labours of two such authorities is of jirime importance. 
The p.ipyri are all Ptolemaic, and the majority form fragments of a single roll containing copies of 
documents written in the year 179-8 B.c. As to the nature of this roll Wilcken inclines to a ditferont view 
from that of P.vhtsch. All the fragments are very imperfect, and indeed the whole collection is dis- 
■ippointing at a first glance. It is only the constructive genius of the two editors which brings out its real 
value and significance. Mittnlungen am der Freihurger Papi/russaiiiuilung. -3. Jv.nstische Ui'hinden der 
Ptuleii(iii;ru‘it. {Abh. d. ffeidelherger Ate., Phil.-hist. KL, 1927, 7. Abb.) Heidelberg, Carl Winter, 1927. 
Pp. ix + 112. 

WiLCKBX publishes from the Freiburg collection a petition addressed to the village scribe of Philadelphia 
by a clcriich and a Ufjeia 6emv and makes it the oc.casioii for a valuable discussion of the Syrian 

cult. An 'Arapyarifov is mentioned in the petition, and also a Mi^Tpajor. Zu den “ Sgrisc/ien Goiteni,'’ 
in Fcftgabe fur Adolf Deissiauua, 1927, 1-19. In Archie, V'llI, 287, Wilckex gives a note on this publica- 
tion, with a small text correction. 

An important event during the year is the appearance of Part iv of Vol. i of Wilcken’s great undcr- 
t, iking generally referred to as C.P.Z. This part, which contains jip. 4.o3-676, concludes the volume, and 
contains the ‘‘Xachtriige und Verbessorungen,” a useful “Serapeums-Chronik,” giving a chronological 
t.iblo of events, the inde.vo.s to the volume (the full inde.v verborum is reserved for Vol. ii), and two plates, 
■showing the Dresden papyrus. The toxt.s are of a miscellaneous kind but include sec'cral very important 
documents. With them is completed the publication of the Wemphi.s papyri, and Wiluken is to be 
heartily congratulated and thanked on the conclu.siou of the first part trf his task. Urlunden der Ptoleuiaer- 
-fiiV {Altere Fu'nde). See notices in earlier instalments of this bibliography. This 2'ai't is reviewed by 
P. M. Meyer {Z. vergj. llechtsw., xliii, 467-72). 

Two jiublications of documonts in other languages than Greek may be mentioned as an apniendix 
to this division. M. Lidzuar.ski has published an Aramaic ostracou of the 4th or 3rd cent. b.c. (yc.ir 33 
of Arta\crxes IT, Ptolemy I, or Ptolemy II) bought by Si’iegelbekg at Lu.xor in January 1927. It i.s 
a reeciiit for salt-ta.x. Epigraphisches, in O.L.Z., (1927), 1043-4. MTlc'ken has publi.shed a note on 

SoTT.vs’s P. Lille dcm. i, which had hitherto been inaccessible to him {Archie, vill, 285-6), 

Ptolemak-Roman. B.G.L'. vii (see Joumvjd, siii, 98) has been reviewed by Wilckex {Archie, viii, 
288-94; imiiortant as usual) and Sax Nicolo dJ.L.Z., xxx, 1927,477-9; specially from the legal side). 
'Wir.cKEX has also luiblished a belated review or rather pierhaps a note (with new readings) on the 
two jiapyri luiblished by Kh.aviaras and Kugeas as long ago as 1913 in ’ ’E4>i?pfp4s. Archie, 
viir, 287-8. 

Uonvia. Olssox's Papyrashriefc has been reviewed by W. Otto {Phil. Woch., xlvii, 1927, 50-1), 
A\'. ScHUBART {O.L.Z., XXIX, 1926, 407), and M. Hombert {Rev. beige de Phil., vi, 1927, 287-9). 

H. Hexxe has continued his [niblication of the Graux papyri, his new instalment containing iios. 3 to 8, 
which are as follows ; 3. Oath of a.d. 51, that a she^iherd from Philadelphia is not being concealed. A new 
strategus occurs. 4. .v.d. 248, Philadeljjhia. An interesting petition in a case of assault (an ’Apa^oTo^hrrjs 
of 80 years (jf age occurs). 5. a.p. 44. Bank Stey>3oX^ (a difficult document, as the formula is not clear). 
6. A.D. 148. The .same class of document as P. 0.\y. 1639, etc. 7. a.d. 221, Philadeliihia. Loan of money 
(in 1. 1 for ifwhos qu. j:iuy{<6}Xns l}. 8. A.D. 221, Philadelidiia. Rejmdiation of a lea.se in consequence of 
dfipoxia. This and the previous instalment are reviewed together by Wilckex {Archie, viil, 310-12). 

IViLCKEX reviews {Archie, viii, 308) Boak's Alimentary Contracts (see Journal, XIII, 101). 

C. C. Edgar has published some j>apyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus, all but one of which arc 
literary and have therefore been noticed in § 1 above. The exception is a letter from Tcos, a UpoyKvfios 
and probably the [lerson who occurs in P. Oxy. 1029, to his father Onnojihris about a summons from the 
centurion at Akoris to the iepoyXiifmi to go uji to that place. It dates from the reign of Domitian. 
Fragments vj Papyri from 0.>yrynchos, m Ann. Sere., xxvi, 203-10. Reviewed by MTlckex {Archie, 
VIII, 309-10). 

A review in .Moiareior, III (1927), 184, of Thuxell’s Sitologen-Papyri is known to me only from the 
bibliography in Aegyptus (viii, 209, no. 6146). 

The Michigan ephebic document edited by Bell {Journal, xii, 245 ff.) is reviewed by MTlc'Kex 
{Archie, VIII, 309). It has occasioned the publication of two other documents relating to ejiliebi. One, at 
Berlin, which furnishes a useful jiarallel to P. Oxy. 477, is edited from Schdbart’s transcrijit of the 
original by H. I. Bell. A Parallel to Wikken, Chrest. Uf iii Journal, xiil, 219-21. The other, at 



BIBLIOGEAPHY : GEAECO-EOMAN P:GYPT (1!»2G l!»27) 14;’, 

Michigan, is edited, with a more detailed commentary, l>y A. E. K. 1 !i)\k, TUr Epikn'ait It.rord of ,tii 
Ephehe of Antinoopohs fnmd ot honim.^, ibid., l.">l-4. JJutli are of the ind century : the Mulligan 
document is particularly useful, yielding .several new jiieees of information 

R. Cagsat review.s the Latin document jiulilished by Samikks isee .lonnuiJ ^ xili, lOiii, reprochuinc 
the text and adding some notes (one suggestion for reading). .Voaivo,, pn lutm iVE<iii}ili , in .h.nni. 
Sac., 1926, 268-70. Ho has also published an articl e on the Latin tablets containing e.xtrac ts of notilications 
of birth, in which he republishes the Kelsey tablets, those m |!.( ;.U. \ ii, and then the otlier e\amples, and 
add.s some valuable notes. CuQ suggests for the forniul.i c. ad k. tin* extension , act’di. rS<>a 

fxciaplum) ad h Detain'. Ej;trait.i dn Sai.taince Ei/i/pta nc, ibid., 1927, 19;? 2<i2 

H. Hexnk publishes a papyrus of tlie ( 'airo Museum which lontains .i petition of \.ii. |s(; eoneerning 
the theft of a reXfia It comes from Theadel|>hia. Ketiewed by Wlia'KKN (.in /nr, \ m, ;tl2i 

.T. G. M'inter has jmblished .i small but extremeh interesting collection of huters from the Michigan 
collection. They are miscellaneous in origin, but they bate a certain common interest in tli.it they relate 
in one way or another to persons on niilit.iry service The first two, which are also thosi. most likely 
to make a popular appeal, are two excellently jireserved letters found to-gether at K.iranis in the .uitunin 
of 1926, both from a youth named Apolin.tris (kici to his mother and written, the tirst from Ostia, the 
second, a few d.tys later, from Rome. IVe io.irn that he h.al been drafted to Mi'enuni .md th.it he thought 
.Rome “a fine place." The date i.s about .v.n. 2i,(,. Xo. is from Sempronius to his son G.iiiis on his 
enlistment; early 2nd century, tiempronius is much miset by tlu' repoit that his .son h.id not enli'led in 
the fleet. 4. Time of H;ulrian. Juliu.s (Tenieii'. a centurion of tlie legm ,x.\ii Deiotcri.inu to Soi r.ition 
.0. Time of Trajan i Interesting letter written from I’selkis to K.ir.mis. 6. ;?rd eentuia , Longinus ( 'elcr to 
hi.s brother Maximus, Refers to the supply ot bre.id to soldiers .it Taposiris, one d.iGs journey from 
Alexandria. In t/m Service of lionu- : Lettcin from the Miihiijan CoUn tion of Papiiri. in t'/a.n. I'hV.. xxii 
(1927), 2:37-76. 

I know only from a review by I'. ([oLLani, (I'fid ll'o../,.. .xi.vii, 1927, 979 s] , .i public, ition b\ 
G. Zeuetkli of a 2nd century letter from Ammoniiis to Ajiion eoneerning fish ,'ni Itriioil (!,'h,'lir . 

WtLCKEN reviews the ;?rd century lea.so published by Van lloi.si.x .md .Iohn.'on fsei. ./...oneo', xin. 
101). A,-(,7n'r, VIII, :3bi. 

J. G. AVinter has publi.shed an extremely interesting small archive of ftmily letters fiom the .Michigan 
collection. They date from the time of 1 tiocleti.m, and consist of : four letters from P.iniscU' to his wife 
Plutogenia ; one from the same to his wife and d.iiighter; one to Ids lirother; one from Pliitogeni.i to her 
mother. Tin' letters .ire rich in human interest and h.ive nioreocer othei interesting features. Xotiblv, 
though in most the f.iniily is cle.irly ( 'hri'ti.ui, one letter is ,is obuoU'lj. p.ig.in. is this ,i c.i'C of con- 
version or of rel.ipse under persecution' If WTi.i ken is right, .is he well m.i\ be, m suggesting tint the 
Achilleus mentioned in one of the letters is the well-known usurper of the ii.uiie /nr (,'d, /,„■■/, tr , 
U.'oirpator.i Achil/eiis, in Stif/.^hcr. I’r. Ak., 1927, 270 6 . the hist ide.i must be rejected. T/o Eomd n 
Lettcra of Pa nU/rog, in Jovcnal, xin 1927,, .■)9-74. :? plates, 

Roiiian-Bjjznntini.. The Rritisli Museum volume. ./. »■< amJ f'hri.alaix in Eappt. is the subject of an 
intere.sting and v.iluable review by AV, HENiiSTi.Niu.itG ( Piij:. E.. xxvii. 1927. Id^'-do;. See also below, 
in the following division {Biizantincj and in 9. 

The chief item in thi.s division, and probably the nmst im|iortant iiiisi ell.iiieous collection of |iaii\ri 
published during the year is P, (h\y. .xvii, i.s.siied as a memorial volume to Prof. ( !kenfi.i.i. and cont. lining, 
.i.s a frontispiece, an excellent portrait of Inm. The x.diiable literary texts in this volume are dealt 
with in 1, 2, 6, but the non-liter.ary texts are in their own way not less noteworthv. A rcscrij.t 
of Severus Alexander (no. 2104 i is unfortun.itely too niuch niutil.ited to yield much definite information, 
and even more imperfect is an edict by a prefect relating to a trienni.d contest in honour of Livia and 
.some other person (210.7,', but 2106. a dth-century letter from .i prefect ordering tlie collection of a ijii.intitv 
of gold to be sent to Xicomedi.i, is well preserved, though the prefect's n.inie is lo.st. Three other important 
official documents follow, and still more valuable is 21 1<', a well-preserved papyrus recording proceedimgs 
in the .sen, cte in .\.D. 3i0. 2111 is .i re]iort of cases Indore the jirid’ect Petronius M.imertiniis ; 211:3-2115 
arc offici.il letters, each with something of importance; and there are .several other papvri among the 
offici.U document.s which otfer points of outstandin.g intere.st. Among the petitions ni.iy be mentioned 
2l:?9, an apphc.ation 'a.p. 267, > to the board of gymn.isiarcbs of Oxyrhytichu.s from a .senator of Antinoopolis; 
2131, .1 doi iimont of the .s.inie nature as li.G.U. 979 but better iire.served ; and 2134, a long and well 
preserved application for the n>gistratioii of a mortgage (about A.n. 17<)j. Among the contrai ts, 2136, 



144 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 

a .sale of a boat in tlie form of a lease (a.d. 291), calls for special notice. There are a number of letters, 
several of them offering points of iiitere.st ; 2153, concerning an intended voyage by j) fiiKt] (“the little 
Lcirl' 2154, 2155, .ind 2156 are .specially worthy of mention. The Oxyrhynclins Papyri, Part xvil. Edited 
bv Ahthuu .S. IluXT. London, Egypt Exploration Society, 1927. Pp. xv + 313. 4 jilates and portiait. 

,M. XoK.s.v'.s edition of .some Alexaiidi’ia pajiyri, which as already mentioned has now been reprinted in 
P.S.I. vm, i.s reviewed by IVilckex {Archir, viir, 312-14). 

( t. il.vxTKurrEL, a new recruit to the ranks of papyrologv', has produced a meritorious edition of .some 
private letters in the Berlin collection. The.se are; — 1. Pap. Berol. 13897, early 4th century. Chri.stian, 
proli.ibly from the same persons as P. Oxy. 1774 (which he reprints) ; 2. P. Berol. 13989, mid 3rd century. 
A .'Ot of four letters on one sheet. Both papyri are distinctly interesting. Epidvlae priraiue meditae, in 
Ecs, x.\.\ (1927 211-1.5. 

Py:iriitiiie. ITii-CKEN reviews the fr.igment relating to liturgies edited liy Vax Hoesen and Johnson 
I see Jiiiiniah xill, 101), which he holds to date from the early 4th century rather than the o.irly 3rd 
a.s the editors sup[>osed {Arrhir, vili, 314). 

W. E. (.‘huji edits another Coptic Meletian letter from the archive published in Jem and Christians in 
Egypt which has been acquired by the British Museum .since the appearance of that volume. A facsimile 
i' given, and the Coptic is translated. In connection with this letter he notes further references to the 
Meleti.uis supplement, iry to those collected in Jews and Christians, and publishes two Coptic theological 
te.xts. Pome F'lrtli'-r Meletian Documents, in Journal, xiii (1927), 19-26. 

Ens.slin’s Prozcssrerglekh f.seo Journal, xiii, 116) is reviewed by AVilcken [Archir, viil, 314-15) .and 
F. Z[vcker] ^Byz. Z.. xxvii, 1927, 177-8). 

The Metropolitan Museum volume. The Monastery of Epiphanivs fsee Jounud, xiil, 102) has been 
reviewed by C. H. Kraeling (Am. Journ. of Arch., xxxi, 1927, 129-30), IV. Spiegelberg (O.L.Z., xxx, 
1927, 678-9 'i, and P. P. (Anal. Bolland., XLV, 1927, 393-8). See too in 5; 2. 

Aral). Jernstedt'.s P. Po.ss.-Georg. iv (.see Journal, xni, 103) has been reviewed by M'ii.cken t Archie, 
viir, 315-16' .uid f[. 1. Bl.i.l. (Journal, xill, 1927, 269-71); BellIs Two Oficial Letters (ibid., 103) by 
l\ li,CKEN {.[re/tir, vjH, 316' and F. Z[uckek] (By:. Z., xxvn, 1927. 179-SO); and Gkohjiann’s vol. l of 
the Arabic Scries of Corpus Pap. Raineri by M. Sobernheim (D. Lit.-Z., 1927, 256-8). 

Among some Coptic ostraca from Thebes published by A. Mallon are four of the 7th-8th century 
which ccuitain harvest account.s, and one ("7111 century) which contains a letter. Qoelqui’s Ostraca copies de 
Thebes, in Rer. de I'Ea. an.e., I (T925-7), 1-52-6. 

H. I. Bell. 

4. I’oi.iTicAi. History, Biography, Adjiinistration, Topography, Chronology. 

General. Tile fourtli volume of Petrie's Histary of Egypt, originally written by Mah-affy, has been 
put into the capable hands of E. R. Bevax for revision, with the result that the third edition i.s practically 
a new book, giving a comjilete survey of our present information on the Ptolemaic period. A History of 
Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. London, Methuen, 1927. 

C. F. Leh.m.xnn-Haupt contributes to the memorial volume '’S.ttitvimSiov Ileinrirh Sinthodn dargebracht 
lleichcnberg, 1927\ pp. 142-65, an article Vom pyrrischen uad ersten syrischen zuin chrenwnideischen 
Eriige. cnticiriiig Sidney Smith's Babylonian evidence and linking up the Syrian war with the struggles 
ill Europe. 

The .second volume of K.yerst’s GeschicMe des Hellenisrnus is reviewed by C. 5V. in Historisches 
Jahrbaeh, XLVii (1927), 126, by ML \V. Tarn in Class. Rer., xli (1927), 149, and by H. Philipp in Phil. 
fVoeh., XLVII '1927), 1246-7. 

AV. Si’IKGelbehg's Die Gla uhvnrdigkeit eon Herodots Bericht nher Aegypten is reviewed by P. A. A. 
BoKser in Mnseum, 1927, 244. 

('. Edgar review.s .(orouET’s L’inipe'rialisiae nmeidonien (hoc Journal, .xiir, 103) in .Tournal, xiii, 

26S -9. 

The Hellenistic Age (.see Journal, xi, 97) is reviewed by J. E. Lukes in Phil. Work., XLVll (1927), 1144-7. 

Of general works upon the history of Egypt under the Chri.stian emperors it would .seem that there is 
nothing to report. Thus M.ytthi.ys Geezer’s appeal (cf. Journal, xiii, 104) for a renewed study of this 
cchensn verg.uigeiiheitsbolastcte wie zukuuftsweiscnde Epoche’’ is timely. Hist. Z., CXXXV (1927), 173-87. 
()iLu ShhCk's Regesten li.is lit'iMi re\ lowed liy p, IIoi.gkr in Byz. Z., xxvi (1926), 393-8. He questions some 



BIBLIOGRAPHY; GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (19;>G-1 927) 


145 


of the principles on which Seeck corrected the text of the iinj>erial constitutions. O. Harpexhewkh’s 
Oeschichte der cdtkirchlit'hen Literatur (vols. 3 and ha.s been reviewed with bibliographical snpplciiieiits 
by F. Drexl, ibid., 391-3, and E. Schw.xrtz’.s Acta Canciliorum oecvmeniciiruin, t. i, vol. v (on the Coiincil 
of Ephesu.s) has been reviewed by Lebon ui /{erne d'/iistoire ecclesiantii/iie, x.xil (Ibihj}, 83:* (i. For the 
development of the imperial cult reference may be made to the review by K.\hrstei>t in /fi.it. Z., cxxxvi 
(1927), 90-6, of F. Kampers’ Vom Werdegnng der ube/idlundi.ic/ien KaisermyatUr i Leipzig, 1921 and to the 
review of the same work by Hahald Fuchs in Gnomon, ii (1926), 612-16. Jean Maspeko's Ilisloiri' di n 
patriarch.es, etc., has been reviewed by Lebon in Revue d'kistoire ecclhi«sti<i'ie, xiil (1926 :, .")92 -4. 

X. H. Baynes has attempted to explain the referencc.s to Egypt in the llisUiria Augusta. The llistoria 
Augusta: its Date and Purpose. Clarendon Pre.ss, Oxford, 1926, b.’i-h, 199, 141-2. Louis I’.RkiiiEii has 
considered recent publications on the later Empire in Iterue histonijiie, cliii (1926), 193-22.'). 

Political history and position of nationalities. Lli.Y Koss-Tayior discii.'.se-' the evidence to be- derived 
from the Alexander romance. The Cult of Alexander at Ale.randria, in Class. I'hdol., x.xil (1927 . 162 9. 

Ern.st Meyer, Alexander und der Ganges {Kho, xxi, 1927, 19:1-91 1 , may be noted for (ntn isiii of 
“Alexander-historians.” 

G. Eadet deals with Alexander’s visit to the oracle of Ammon, Xote.s sur Thistoire d' Ah.raad n . i Le 
p'elennage au sanctuaire d’ A imnon. Rev. et. anc., xxviii (1926i, 213-40. 

An article in The Times, Jan. 7th, 1927, on the same point, suggests that the motive of the visit was 
military. Pdgrim or S/*y? Alexander in the Oasts. Criticized by I). G. Hooarth, ihtd., Jan. 14th. and 
reply Jan. 20th, and by S. H[eixach] in Rer. Arch., xxv 1 1927;, 235-6. 

H. Behve’s Das Alexanderreich auf prosop. Grundlage i.s reviewed by I . M ilcken (D. Lit.-Z.. xi.vii, 
1927, 359-66\ by W. W. Tarn (Class. Rev., xli, 1927, 39i. and by C. C. Edgar '.Journal, xiii. 1927. 26s;. 

Ehrenberg’s Alexander und Aegypten (.see Journal, xiii, 104) is reviewed by J. K.aekst {/list. Zntt., 
136, 1927, Heft 2, 306-8), by H. P. Bi.ok {Museum, 1927, 305-6., by A. H. < Hist. Jahrh.. xivi. 1926. 
661-2), by E. Meyer (A Lit.-Z., xi.vii, 1927, 37), by F. Heichei.heim ll'hil. Woeh.. xi.vn, 1927. 425 9', 
and by t^. Kahrstedt {Or. Lit.-Z., xxx, 1927, 474-7 .. 

Fritz Geyer’s A/e.raiicfci' olcr 6-' effe ZtiarfocAe/i i.s reviewed by il. V>kh\v. {Gnomon, 192i, 12/ 8 i, 
by F. Heichelheim {Hist. Zeits., 135, 1927, 316-17), and by R. W agnkr I'F/iif. IlocA., xi.vn. 1927, .391-3 .. 

Kornemann’s Satrapenpolitik des ersten Lagiden {atx Journal, xiii, 104; is reviewed by ('.I. Lkhmann- 
Haupt m Klio, XXI, 1926, 108-10. 

The article by E. Cuq, La condition juridique de la Coele'-Syrie au temps de PtolenJe Epiphane ' .'<yria, ' 
1927, 143-62j, ha.s historical as well a.s juri.stic ini].ortance (see also S 6). 

Reference should also be made here to L. Boss- 1 .\YLor, The Proskyttesi.s' and tl.e ILellenistie Ruler 
Cult {J.JL.R., XLVii, 1927, 53-62; ''see al.so 2;, and to E. Bickermann. Reitrage zur antiken I'rkunden- 
geschiehte, 1. Der Heimatsvennerk und die staatsrechtHehe .soRung der llellenen im ptolemai.sehen A-gypten 
{Archiv, vili, 216-39; isee also § 6;. 

V. Tscherikower, IHe hellenistischen Rtadtegrnndungen ron Alexander dem Grossen his auf die Rumer- 
zeit. Pp. xi-f216. Leipzig, 1927, is reviewed by F. Heichelheim in Phd. Woch., xi.vii .'1927 , 1247-5.3, 
and by S. R[einach] in Rer. Arch., xxvi (1927;, 192. 

Spiegelberg’s Reitrage zur Erklarung des neuen Priesterdekretes tsisi Journal, XIII, 105; is reviewi'd by 
C. F. LEHMANX-HAni>T in Klio, xxi i'1926), 107-8. 

Heichelheim’s Auswartige Rerolkerung im Ptolemaerreuh (see. Journal, xill, lo5) is revieweil by 
H. Kee.s in G.G.A., 1926, 172, by H. Philipp in Petermans Mdt., LXXll 11926;, 29, and by 11. Blrve in 
Phil. Woeh., XLVi (1926), 1116-21. 

L". Kahrstedt’s Syrische Terrltorien in hellenistiseher Zeit is reviewed by R. Laqceur in Gnomon, 1927, 
527-36. 

ScHCBARt's Griechen in Aegypten (sec Journal, xill, 105) is reviewed by P. Collart (Rer. de philol., 
.ser. 3, I, 1927, 272-3;, by A. Lesky 'Z>. Lit.-Z., 1927, 1199-1200), by F. Munzer Or. Lit.-Z., xxx. 1927, 
937-9), by A. Godina {Aegyptus, VIII, 1927, 200-201), by H. 1. Bell (Journal, xin, 1927, 272 , by 
J. R. Lukes (Listy Filol., liii, 1926, 291-3;, by F. Vi. von Bis.sing {Phil. H'o' A., xi.vii, 1927, 1553-6;, 
and by E. Bickermann (fJnomon, iii, 1927, 671-5;. 

Van Groningen's llellenisme op Yreemden Roden (.see Journal, xiii, 105; is reviewed by A. Kraemer 
{Phil. Woch., XLVII, 1927, 118-29) and by M. Hombert {Rer. Relge L‘hd., v, 1926, 217). 

Pridik's Mitregent des Konigs J’tolernaios II (see Journal, xill, 105), is reviewed by E. Kuhn i Or. 
Lit.-Z., xxx, 1927, 161-6;. 

Journ. of Kg;pt. Arch. xiv. 


19 



146 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 

Erxst Meyer’s Die Grenzen der hellenistiscken Staaten in Klemasien is reviewed by M. Engers in 
Museum, xxxiv, 1927, 102-3. 

The Jewish question at Alexandria continues to excite some interest. S. Eeixach criticizes Stuart 
Jones (see Juurnal, xill, 107) and holds to his own theory. Claude et les Juifs Ale.randrins in Rev. Arch., 
XXV (1926), 242. E. Laqceur, in Griechische Urkunden in der j udisch-helleaistischen Literatur [Hist. Z., 
136, 1927, 229-52) refers to the letter of Claudius and Willrich’s theory of two .Jewish embassies, which 
he rejects. E. Brecci.a gives a summary of the interpretations of the letter in a lecture delivered on 
18 April, 1927. JuiU et Chretiens de Vancienne Alexandne. Alexandria. Soc. de Puhl. Egypt. 1927. 
Pp. 30. 6 plates. From Aeijyptus we have references to H. Lichtenstein, Zv.r Geschichte der Juden in 
Ale.nindrien in Mon. Schr. Gesch. IFiss. Jiid., LXIX (1925), 357-61, and to E. Matta, Gli “Atti di martirV' 
Alexa ndrini in Didnskaleion, N.S., iv (1926‘), 49-84. 

Bell’s Juden vnd Griechen (see Journal, xili, 106) is reviewed by S. E[einach] in Rev. Arch., xxv 
(1926;, 276, by M. IYellnhofer in Hist. Jahrb., XLVii (1927), 1.30-1, by .S. Gaselee in Class. Rev., xli 
(1927), 87, by H. IYillrich in D. Lit.-Z., 1927, 1.50-1, by F. Heichelheim in Phil. Woch., xlvii (1927), 
1148-51, in Xurn. Lit. B., xLvi (1927), 2128, by A. Julicher in Christl. Welt, xli (1927), 440-1, by J. Vogt 
in Or. lAt.-Z., xxx (1927), 759-61, by J. G. Milne in Journal, xiii (1927), 124-5, and by E. Bickermann 
in Gnomon, III (1927), 671-.5. 

Yon Preherstein’s Alexandrinischen Mdrtyreralten is reviewed by F. Bilabel in Phil. Woch., xlvii 
(1927), 836-9. 

The technical sense of the term Jotoi is discussed by E. Bickermann, who concludes that it denoted 
the citizens of Alexandria enrolled in demes, wherea.s ’Xhc^avSpeis, under the later Ptolemies and the 
Eomans, were “ citoyens de moindre droit,” not members of demes. A propos des da-rol dans VEgypte 
greco-romaine in Rev. de Phil., 3 .Ser., i (1927), 362-8. 

Administration. The con.stitutional inscription of C,iTene (see Journal, xill, 107) has been discussed in 
several papers, two by G. de Sanctis, La Magna Charta della Cirenaica in Riv. di Filol., Liv (1926), 145- 
76, and Le Decretale di Cirene in Rir. di Filol., lv (1927), 185-212, by F. Heichelheim, Zum Verfassungs- 
diagramma ron Kyrcne, in Klio, xxi (1927), 175-82, who dates it in 308, and by Th. Eeinach, La charts 
PtoUmaiqve de Cyr'ene, in Rev. Arch., xxvi (1927), 1-32, who places it in 322 or .321. 

CoLLOMP’s Chancellerie et diplomatique des Lagides (see Journal, xni, 107) is reviewed by lY. lY. Tarn 
in Class. Rev., xli (1927), 201-2. 

H. Henne publishes in Bxdl. Lust. fr. cV Arch. Or., xxvil (1927), 25-7, Motes sur la stratigie. l, Sur les 
strapges de lArsino'ite uu P' siecle apres J.C. ii, Mote sur le Pe'rithebes a I’epoque romaine. 

G. Flore, Sulla Bi;3Xio8ijki; tS>v iysrlfafav (Aegyptus, viii, 1927, 4.3-88) should be noted here as well as 
in § 6. 

Biography. Reference may be made to R. Pfeiffer, Ar.sinoe PhUadelphos in der Dichtung, in Die 
Antike, ii, 3, 161-74. 

V. Aimj^-Giron finds the name of a new epistrategus in an inscription of Denderah. Refection du nvur 
d'enceinte du grand temple de Denderah sous Tibere {Ann. Sen-., xxvi, 1926, 109-12 and xxvii, 1927, 48). 

L. Cantarelli’s paper Per V amministrazione e la storia delV Egitto Romano, v, Jl viaggio di Seneca in 
Egitto in .{egyptus, viii (1927), 89-95, comes under this head. 

C. CiCHORiu.s writes on Der Astrologe Ti. Claudius Balbillus, Sohn der Thrasyllus, in Rhein. Mus. f. 
Phil., N.F., Lxxvi (1927), 102-5. 

B. a. van Groningen reconstructs a fragmentary inscription from Koptos, with the name of a new 
prefect — Valerius — in 3 Severus Alexander. Inscriptio dedicatoria Aegyptiaca in Mnemosyne, lv (1927) 
263-8. 

U. JYilcken, dealing wdth the Pani.skos letters (see Journal, xiii, 59-74), traces their connection with 
the revolt of Achilleus and finds in Firmu-s and Achilleus nationalist leaders against R(.me. Zur Geschichte 
des Usurpators Achilleus in Sitztmgsb. Pr. Akad., 1927, 270-6. 

P. Hendrix, De ale.xandrijnsche haeresiarch Basilides, has been reviewed by J. Coppen.s in Revue d’his- 
toire eccUsiastiqve, xxiii (1927), 73-75. ISee also § 2.) Augustine Fitzgerald’s The Letters of Synesius of 
Cyreae has been reviewed by N. Terzaghi in Byz. Z., xxvi (1926), 381-4. Terzaghi accentuates the doubts 
which surround the chronology of the life of Synesius. That chronology is largely based on arqumenta e 
sdeniio, and the validity of such arguments depends upon our answer to the question ; How far is our 
collecti.ai of letters complete ? M hat if many letters have not been preserved 1 It is indeed impi-obable 
that Synesius only wrote 150 letters. Fitzgerald contends in his preface that Synesius was a Platonist, 



147 


BIBLIOGUAPHY : GBAECO-KOMAN EGYPT (l‘J2G !!)-J7) 

rather than a Xeoplatonist, and reduce.-^ to a uiiniinmn the influence of Plotinux Tkuz icaii would lav nu'ro 
weight upon the Alexandrian period of the life of Synesius; Plato is n,>t the only source of his thought : 
to explain the hymns or such works as the /tc In^nhuiinti not even Xi‘<)platonisui I'v Plotinus siitiici's, I lerc 
we must include gnosticism and magic, “o p astrologi.i orient. ile in gcncrc cil cgi/iana in is]iccic'' ; 
cf, the letter to Peoinus de dotto ut^trnhjhii. d h<‘ contacts arc too dose *• pin* non farci credere che tutto il 
tiorire di letteratura gnostica e niagioa non fosse hen noto ,i lui <• non fo^-se anchi', jicr niolta paite, passato 
a constituire uu nucleo centrale e sostanziale del lavoro iiitellettuale di ipic'to .uitore.' Nohman II. 
Baynes, in a review of the .same book, Eny. Hist. Recieic, xi.li 1 1927;, 419 -IK, has supiileniented the hiblm- 
graphy of recent work on Syne.sius. ,1. Geffckex has written .i (latier on A7 „, Hiiyutio mid dn' 
gi'Schichtliidtei' Hiaienji'ii nd., in A ems J t/ZirAarcAc/', ii , l!>2ti;, 1 .“ii l ."i. The article of d'n Koi m ik 1 1 i.it m an n. Ziir 
Chrouologie des KyriU rou Sci/t/iufjotis, in Z. fur Ktrr/i<;iiiii'.<r/i., xi.v d927), dlK 11), h.is an interest for 
student.s of Christian Egypt, since it is useful for the gener.il chronologv of the .Monophtsite coiitrioei s\, . 
W. Ensslin has suggested that the M.ixiniinus who was sent .is envoy to Attil.i in Its is possihK to he 
dentified with the du.r of the Thebaid who concluded .i peace treaty with the Blemies in 4.');5. Mu / i,„imi.< 
uud seiii Beghiter, der Uistoriker Priskos, in Dyzantlnisvl’-iiriigri rhudu: Jul r},iuh,.r. v I!i2tj , 1 9. N. II. 
Baynes has attempted to show that the arjiaTyXiiTijs Eustathius who carried the I'rthi.H.'i in I)e. emher 
638-9 to Gyru.s in Alexandria cannot be identitied with the fitiyurTgnt of the same name who took p.irt in 
the ceremonie.s described in Const. Porpli. Dr Cereiuoitiis, ii, 29, for ituyuTTiius alw.iv.s = eee/evt. ,• ..m. 
si Mote on the i'lironologii of the Iv ign o/ the Knijjeror llrrudins, in llii,. Z , .xxvi ■ 1926 . .'i.'i i; as .igaiiist 
*1. JuLiCHEH in the Harnack Festgabe, Tubingen, Mohr, 1921,. The most import. uit hiograpliie.il con- 
tribution of the year is H. Delehayes publication of a new version of the Life of .lohn the Alnisguer. 
Uhc Vie inedite de Saint Jean rAumbni'ir, in Anal. Boll., xlv 1927 ■, ■'>-74. This is derived from M.K. i ir. 319 
of the Library of S, Mark at Venice. The Venice text, concludes Pere Dh.ehwe, is like that of the 
Metaphrast, a compilation in which the biography of Leontius ha.s been conil>ine.l with that of .Sophioinus; 
it is older than the Metaphrastic version which is derived from it .uid it prcseiwcs intiiuteh better th.ui 
the Metaphrastic text the account of Sophronius. 

Topograph/. H. 1. Bell ha.s published the interesting lectiiie on .\h\ra,,dria which he delivered to the 
Society last year, adding references where m.vterial. dovnad, xiii 'T927,, 171-K4 

Some useful information as to Jewish buri.ds at Alexandria m included in Bkeccia's ./,/!>.< rt Chr-'tien.s 
mentioned above. 

(.hrOHology. ErNsT Meyer .s L uter.-iudi'figjen zar t 'hroiadogo' dor orsten Ptotemai.r see Juiiriad. .Xlil, 
110) is reviewed by \V. Ensslin in Plul. Woeh., xi.\ii ■ 1927 , k76-k. 

A. E. R. Boar Jiscu.sses the Egyptian n.inies of the months under C.iligul.i. .MUN APOYil \ \HOS. 
Jonraal. XIII (1927), lSu-6. 

C. E. VAN Sickle, for The Ternniud Dates ot the rotgu ot Alexandor .Vc/’v/v/., imes the eiideme of 
Egyptian papyri. (??««. Phil., xxil i,1927;, 31.'i-17. 

H. Mattingly continues the argument about the regn-il years of the Emperors in tiie third centurv 
fsee Journal, xiii, 110) in Motes on the Chronology of tin lionian Einpu-ors trom Valnram to Donlniiaa 
{Journal, xiii, 1927, 14-18). isee .ilso the pro~ent numher. 

J. C. Milnl. 

N. II IlAVNK.s. 


5. .Social Life, Education. Art, Economic Hlstoky, NumisM.vtic.s ani. Meuiolooy. 

(Innerat. V. Otto'.s K "Itn rgesch nhte des Altertiims 'see Journal, xill, 110 is reviewed hv B. MeissNLK 
\Ur. Lit.Z , x.xix, 1926, 398-400) .iiid A. Cai.iilkini < Aegygtus, viii, i;»27, 201 ."i 

M. Rosl'ovi/.KFF .s Sorod and Eronouln IDstory .see Journal, .XIll, 1 lO 1 1 > Is reviewed bv R ( ' VON \T 
.Journ. d‘sSae., 1926, 426-.8;, F. Mi NZhll ftr. Lit.-Z., XXIX, 192<;. 982 .1 , C. RahkI Pur. ,'t. anC., iilX, 
1927, 119-21;, and C. hl .SancTIs ' /Ac. di Filot., l.iv, l!t26, .■)37 .ot;. 

E. Cavaignac, Snr I attribution d- s jraguo nts </. pii/girus see .ibove, S L, m.iy be noted as useful for 
the purposes of this .section. 

So, 001 life. 4V. Otto contributes ,1 paper to the 'Y.iriTig.,imv Sm,h„da pji. ]!)4 20o entitled Zum 
lIoJznr“inonail lies /A. fb /o.,-., iu wliieli he trai Cs the eustom of liearing .1 liclit before .1 nioiiarcli from 
Persia tlirough Helleiiistie Kingdoms to Rome, noting p.utieiil.irly the rf)ai(r<fn',imi of Kleopatra HI. 

19 2 



148 BIBLIOGKAPHY : GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 

In the same collection (pp. 255-300) is an exhaustive study by M. Sax Nicolo, Zur Vereinsgeriehts- 
harkeit im hellenistichen Aegypten, the interest of which is mainly juristic. 

M. Ro.stovtzeff has published two articles, practically repeating and expanding part.s of his Economir 
History, one, on The Problem of the Origin of Serfdom in the Roman Empire, in Journal of Land and 
Public Utility Economics, 1926, 198-207 ; the other, on Les classes rnrales et les classes citadines dans le 
haul empire romain, in Melanges (Thistoire offerts d Henri Pirenne, 419-34. 

The third edition by F. Oertbl of Pohlmann’s Oeschichte der sodalen Frage is reviewed bj' 
J. H.\sebroek in Gnomon, 1927, 257-66, by V. Ehrenberg in Hist. Zeits., 135, 1927, 444-6, and by 
W. Exsslix in Phil. Woch., xlvii (1927), 775-84 and 803-9. 

In .1 Ptolemaic Holiday \V. M. Flinders Petrie reconstructs the story of the document.s publi.shed by 
Bell (see 3) {Asicient Egypt, 1927, 75-6). 

G. Sedre, Tonristes anciens aux tomheaux des rois {Journ. des Sac., 1927, 168-78, 262-71, 307-18) and 
Les impromptus touristiijues au.r tombean.c des rois {,Rer. et. auc., xxix, 1927, .341-76) deals with the graffiti 
published by Baillet. 

The bibliography in Aegyptus (6561, p. 233) mentions a dissertation by K. Fr. IV. Schmidt, Das 
griechische Gymnasium in Aegypten, Halle, 1926. 

Reference may be made here to an article belonging also to § 2, E. Bickermann, Ritvulmord and 
Eselskult, in Monatsschr. f. Gesch. h. IlVss. d. .fude/itmns, LXXi (1927), 171-264. 

Eduration, Science, and Art. R. W. Si.oley describes the Gronia : An Ancient Surveying Instrument, in 
Ancient Egypt, 1926, 65-7. 

K. Roxczewski, Description des chapiteaux corinthiens et varies dv. Musee dJ Ale.randrie [Egypte) (pp. 36, 
8 pis. and 29 figs.) is published as a supplement to fasc. 22 of Bidl. Soc. Arch, Alex., 1927, and reviewed by 
R. L. in Rev. Arch., xxv (1927), 401. 

Alexandrian Art i.s briefly and inadequately mentioned in A. W. Lawrence’s Later Greek Sculpture 
(London, Cape, 1927. Pp. xvii + 138, 112 plates): the book is reviewed by R. H. in J.H.S., xlvii (1927), 
271-2. 

0. M. Dalton’s East Christian. Art has been reviewed at length by Charles Diehl in Byz. Z., xxi 
(1926), 127-133. Diehl has himself just published a book on Hart chretien primitif et I’art hyzantin. Van 
Oest, Paris and Brussels, 1928. Pp. 61 + Table des matieres+64 plates. 

Finance, Agriculture, Industry. V. Martin’s La fiscalite romaine (see Journal, xiii, 112) is reviewed 
by P. C. in Ree. de Phil., ser. 3, i (1927), 272-3 and by J. G. Milne in Journal, xiii, 276. 

A dissertation (Jena, 1923, unprinteJ) by O. Grabs on Die Preisrevolution im 4 . Jahrhundert n. Chr. 
und ihre Ursachen, nachgetviesen an Aegypten, is mentioned in B.G.LI., vil, 139. 

M. Schnebel’.s Landivirtschaft is reviewed by M. Rostovtzeff in Classical IVeekly, May 2, 1927, and 
by \V. ScHUBART in Or. Lit.-Z., xxx (1927), 163-4. 

The second part of Ch. Dubois, L’olivier et Vhuile Jolive dans I’ancienne Egypte, dealing with the 
Roman period, appears in Rev. de pkil., ser. 3, i (1927), 7-49 (see Journal, xiii, 112 on first part). 

The British Museum Guide to an Exhibition of Manuscripts and printed books illustrating the history 
of Agncultvre (1927, pp. 30, 8 plates) includes descriptions of and notes on nineteen jiapyri, .some of 
them unpublished, relating to Egyptian agriculture in the Graeco-Roman period. 

J. Vogt reviews Ricci’s Coltura della Vite (see Journal, xi, 102), in Or. Lit.-Z., xxx (1927), 676-7. 

W. L. IVestermanx uses the Zeno papyri to illustrate the conditions of agricultural labour under 
Philadelphus, with special reference to the rate of wages. Egyptian Agricultural Labor under Ptolemy 
Philadelphus in Agricultural History, I, No. 2 (1927), 34-47. 

A. IV. Persson’s Staat und Manufaktur (see Journal, xiii, 112-13) is reviewed by M. P. Charlesworth 
in Class Rev., XLi (1927), 152. 

In the bibliography of Journ. des Sav. is mentioned A. Jard^, Les vereales dans I’Antiquite {Bibl. des 
Ec.fr. (TAthhies etde Rome, fasc. 130). Paris: de Boccard, 1926. Pp. xvi -1-240. 

Numismatics and Metrology. A. SEGRk has published a comprehensive work on ancient metrology, a 
considerable part of which is taken up with facts and figures derived from Egypt : he seems to have missed 
very little that comes within his purview, and the book will be of great service to students for purposes of 
reference. Metrologia e circolazione monetaria degli antichi. Bologna, Nicola Zanichelli, 1928 (published 
1927). Pp. xiv -1-546. Incorporated in this are several articles which have previously been noticed in this 
bibliography, and one more recent, A’ofe di metrologia Greco-Egizia in Studi Ital. di Fil. Class., N.S. v, 
93-110. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1!J2(3 1<J27) 149 

E. S. G. Robis&os’s volume on the Gyrenaic coins in the liritish Miiseinn is important from the point 
of view of Ptolemaic numismatics, and the exhaustive introduction contains much valuable information m 
relation to the history of Egypt. Catulojjue of the (I’nvt coiiis of Cyrmutica. Loiulon, Piritish Museuni. 1!»27. 
Pp. cclxxv + 154, 47 plates. Reviewed by J. (J, Milnk in f7o.«.i. /ft/-., xr.i (1927), 2.33 4. 

G. F. Hill publishes a gold octodrachm of Ptolemy HI in the liritish iMuseum. Brit. .)/«.«. (^uorirrly, 
I, 70: also in Greek coins acquired hy the British Mu.seuta in I'.UH, in Mum. Chron , VH ( 1927;, 2 (IS. 

P. Couissix, in an article on Les annes gau/oises fiyure'es siir /es inouu/nents grecs, etr>isqu<s, et romains 
{Rec. Arch., xsv, 1927, 133 -176), refers to a tetradrachm of “ Ptolemy Soter,’’ which ])rovoked a note from 
Th. Reinach pointing out that a large claas of coins with the .symbol of a Galatian buckler exists, 
belonging to Philadolphus. Rev. Arch., xxvi (1927), 134 •'>. 

J. G. Milse discusses The Ale.randrian coinage of Angustus in Journal, xiii 1927), 13.") 40. 

L. L.vffbaxchi refers to the Alexandrian nunii.smatic evidence on p. 117 in a paper entitled />/<■ Datcn 
der Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian. Xum. Zeit., xix (1926', 113 18. 

H. Mattingly quotes the letter piibli.shed in Meyer, Jur. Pay., 249, 73 note, and points out its 
bearing on the circulation of Egypt at the end of the third century .x.D. Sestertius and denarius under 
Av.relian in Kura. Chron., vil (1927), 224-6. 

A rexdew by J. Vogt of Max Bernhard's Haiulhuch zur Mnnzku nde d. rmn. Kaiserzeit should be 
noticed. Gnomon, 1927, an 8. 

Arturo Anz.xni has in preparation a Corims of Axumitc (oins, which are of interest to the student 
of Roman Egypt: a preliminary article has appeared. Xumisuaitica A.ruinita in Rir. hat. Xvm., in, 
ser. 3 (1926), 5-110. There are also .some remarks on Axunnte coins in G. F. Hill's Gn-ek coins aeqmred 
hy the British Museuyn in lOX in Xum. Chron., vi H92fi), l.'14-6. 

J. G. Milne. 

X. H. Baynes. 


6. Law. 

A. General. 

i. Bihliographies. The most comiilete bibliography is that of E. Perrot, lOr. hi.J. dr. fr. et Gr., 
X.S., V (1926), 8»-25* In that of H, L^vy-Bruhl, liec. hist., cLiv '1927;, 231-6, there is little that 
concerns us. In Z. Sa.r.-St., xi.vii 11927), 513-79, IV. Kunkei. continues from previous volumes the 
review of Italian legal literature, 1915-22, and ihid., 586-94, he coutrihute.s an impre.ssive bibliogra]ihy of 
J. Part.sch, to whom V. AkangIo-Ruiz devotes a Xerrohnjio m Bxdl. 1st. hir. Bom., xxxv il927), 227-37. 
Less relevant here is the bibliography of Paul Kruger Ly Fritz Schulz in the same number of the 
Z. Sav.-Si., xxxiii-ix. 

ii. Lexicographical . Egon Weis.s, Z. f. rgl. Rechtsu-., xlii H926;, 291-.3, warmly welcomes M. Sax 
X lcoLo’s Greek part of the Yocahidarium Cod. Just, \fourn.al, xiii, 113). It conlirms the continuity of 
Greek legal terminology and also contributes to the solution of the basic ]irnblein of Roman law, namely 
its re-thinking into Greek during the fourth and fifth centuries. It is no merely mechanical index : thus 
the proiier Latin term is often supplied (sec vnyos iroXiriKbr, f’yyvij, dymyii;. 

In Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom., xxxv (1927), 177-89, O. Gradenwitz illustrate.s the utility of I’reisigke's 
Worterhuch by deriving from it rectifications of B.G.l'. 61.3, 14 and 41-2, B.G.U. 592, 11-16, P. Ainh. 67 
and B.G.L*. .361. Intero.sting suggestions are made for the further organi.sation of papyrology. Again m 
Archie, vill, 27)0, the .same writer argues in favour of his own completion of B.G.L*. .38, s, ii, 38: rals 
dX[i;^fi]ms against L. Mitteis's (Chrest., p. 109): rais dX[7)0ti']aIf. u.sing the data of the index to .lustinian's 
Novels which is being prepared at Munich. And lastly, reviewing Araxoio-Ruiz and Olivieri's Inscrip- 
tiones Graecae Sicilioe et Infimae Itnliae (Milan, 1925), in Z. Sav.-St., XLVii (1927), 490-502, O. Gradexwitz 
elucidates djinwKrfya, a airal Xtyhyfvnv which occurs on the recto of Tah. Herucl. 1. 109, with the help of 
the new Lidiiell and Scott r. dcoTroiXftr. 

iii. Xc’r fe.rts. New pnblu'ation.s of papyri arc catalogued alsivc in .3, and some inilividu.al docu- 
ments from them are mentioned incidentally in the course of the pre.scnt section. Special interest attaches 
to P. Oxy. XVII on account of its inclusion (2103) of fragments of a third-century papyru.s showing pirtions 
of the text of Gaius, Inst. iv. Fr. 1 gives a few words of .s. 57 ; frs. 2 and 3 cover from the middle of s. 68 
to the middle of s. 72 a, thus coinciding at the end with .an illegible p.age of the Vorone.se palimpsest. 
Unfortunately they break off ju.st where we can now see that information ;as to the formula of the actio 
de peculio cl dc in rem cerso, .suppressed hy Ju.st., Inst, iv, 7, w;us given by Gams. Hence the new part is 



150 BlBLlOGKxU^HY: GRAECO-RUMAN EGYPT (1026-1927) 

less iiinxii't.int th.iii tlio second ci>j)y now .ivailalile of the earlier sections, for this greatly discredits 
the \iew of I ert.iin nmdei'n writers that the Veronese Gains contaiii.s material additions by post-Gaians. 
Kiel; in tliis matter we might have been more fortunate, since the sections found do not appear to have 
been speeiliealiv attaekerl in any serious point. Xo. 2 (J!S 9 is another juristic fragment, in a fourth-centuiy 
hand, dealiiie, so far its mutil.ited state allow.s one to speak, with legacies: joint legacies per oind. and 
a wife's right to take under the will of her hu.sband. See further under G, below. 

iv. M ,h 1 , 11 ^ reri'f /'s-. L. V’enuer's Der heutitje fit'nul der rontisehea Rechtso’isseiiseluift is reviewed 
helow, |i. ISll. 

In f. ''.'/k xi.ii {19df!', 289-91, I’EU. liisorKiUKs notices shortly the inaugural lecture of 

the first holder of the eh, nr of Gi-eek Legal History at Athens, a lecture which incliideei in its .survey the 
intluence of Egyptian on Gieek law: P. S. Photiades, EiVirijpiof Xiiyo?, Yearbook of the Athenian Lav: 
Fartjltn, 

In Avijiiptiie, VII 1926', 1.14-63, V. Araxgio-Ruiz reviews Raccolta Lvnibrom [Journal, xill, 115), 
espeei.illy the legal l■olltril)utions : P. de FRAXCl.sct on P.S.I. 55, contesting P. Colliset’s thesis that it 
is pre-.Justinian : S. Soi.azzi, who maintains that P. Ryl. 117 is not a degenerate in ivre eessio, but a 
a, ^s'e, b<iiioriiiii : IS. llKunr referring P. Stud. 22 , 131 to daimiiini in fectiiia ; L. Wexger on the P. Oxy. xvi 
pi'oeedur.d doeiinients: ,ind F. Xl.Mtoi on E.epo.dti I'see liclow, R, v). 

In ,111 appreciative, but cautious, review of P. Collinet’s Hirtoire de I'eeole de Beyrouth (Parrs, 1925), 
I’hinc.'HKIM Z. X'r.-yy., ,\lvii, 1927, 46'3-9) suiiports the author's opinion, controverted by P. de 
Fkaxcisci, as to the age of P.S.I. 55. 

V. Th“ 'i-ritten ii'Mruiiient. A. Si.gre continues his studies Journal, xiil, 114; add Eota a P.S.I. 006 
by G. Flohi:, .I'vyj'tui, vii, 1926, 271-4,’ with two articles in B/dl. 1st. Bir. Rom., xxxv (1927), The first 
161-8', I ,lo' iniMiiti •iiforai.oirdd in Eijitta nelV et it inip-riale, deals mainly with a feature of the O.xy- 
rhyiichite documents, lumiely the preliminary proceedings before a private notary iv ityvia. The aijorauvmus 
might .idopt the document drawn fV dyvta either by su 2 >erseding it by a projier agoraiiomic document or 
by allowing an fugaprcpijo-is- of it before him.solf. The first case jiresents no difficulty, but in the .second 
where do we get the e-icrraApa of the ^iglXiodijci; iyKTrjaeav recluired for the effect in reni of contracts of 
.sale or hyjiothecation I SectrL thinks that the presentation to the ayoranonwi of the document drawn 
iv dyviii was accoiipianicd by a recjuest for itria-TaKjia. Though the forms in which the agoranomus 
1 oiumuiiic.ited to the .iiiXiodijKii .ind the iyKVKXdov are not known, the control of the latter i.s frroved by 
I', G\y. 241-3: 327-40. 

Si ore's second article (69-104 A’ote ntdla fonna del doemnento greco-roniano, deals with the con- 
\ergeiice of the Greek and Roman forni.s to a uniform tyjie, the Byzantine tabellionary in.strument, a 
much wider subject, less successfully i>reseuted. The first .section trace.s the decay of the objective double 
■^yngraphn and its rejilacement by subscribed duplicate documents, one cojry being deposited in a piublic 
archive : illustrated from the Deljihic mamimission.s. The second .section, on the imjierial period, makes 
more usc of jiapvri. Evcui before the Const. Antnniiiian.a the Roman olurograiih, with scriptara interior 
,iml e.i'i' rinr is di[il(,i„aticall,v very close to the ( Ireek. Secirk's e.xi>lanatiou of the regulation of this form 
by ,i SC. of Xci'o (Full Snnt. 5, 2.5, 6 ) slumld be noted 141 . 80), But from the third century the Roman 
chu'ogr.q.h w.is ahsorbeci by the Greek. In epi.stolary form it underwent little change till the fourth 
century .section 3), when begins the evolution towards the tabellionary instrument. This i.s considered 
chiefly in light ..'f the iinjiyri, subject to the reservation that the evolution there is rather special. There 
.pgiears to be a misuiiclerst.incling (j). 100) of G. 4, 21 , 17, 1. Segre ends with an account of the nomicus 
I)io..i orus ot Aiitiiioipiolis iP. Lond. v) and an ajijiendi.v on the tahellionvs oi Byzantine jiajiyri (pj). 102-4). 

Bn aatik'M tirihidlagen dnr frnhniittelaJterlirhnn. Priraturkvnde (Teuhiier, 1927), by H. Steix.icker, 
1 bavc only ..ceil enough of to note the title of section 10 : Das 'irdko-agypti.sehn U rknndeniresea 
Neither Seuke imr Stlixackek could take account of B. U\y. xvil, 2131, showing the survival as late as 
A 1 ). 207 of the olil double document. 

Ill Mnenio^yne, LV 192i , , 1.8 (- 238 , J. C. X.abek goes on with his Obserratiuacidae ad papyros iuridicae, 
the 'ubject being the official entries on documents known a.s irraifiaTa and p^apdypnra. The jiresent article 
continue' the Litter totuc .lud more is to follow. S lb, after discu.ssiiig the exact significance of ^prjfia- 
t'Juv ,iud iTvyxpr]paTi(eiv, de.ds with the offices connected with the census. 16 treats of iiTliTTdKp.a, 
TTpniTuyyf'Kui, tuc lecture of the offici.d examination of title, the moment when civil title jia.sscd, napddeaii 
and pcTf-iyp.itjej. I , coii'idcrs various offices connected with the validation of instrument.s, and § 18 
the ex.iet piuiiosc and ettect of brjpna-iaan. The article ends with a rich elenchus fo ntiurn for 11-18. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY; GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 151 

B. Law of person-^. 

i. Corporations. To ’Ti7riTvfx,iwv Heinrich Swohoda dargettrachi f lleicheiiberg, li>27' M. San Xk olo 
coiitriLutes (p}). 255-300i an article on the internal jurisilictinn exercisotl bv’ corporations in Btoloinaic 
times: 2ur } ereinsgerirktsharhcit iin heUenistischcn Agyptcn. The material, c'hietly demotic and conhned 
to religious corporations, is eked out by Greek analogies. Successive sections treat of the con''titutiun of 
the corporate courts, their competence, offences dealt with, penalties inflicteil, procedure up to judgement 
and execution. For Roman corporations the (juestion is too comjilex to admit of a .siniiilo -oliitiou, but 
in Greece and F.gypt the corporate statutes formed a sort of contract between tlie members, so that the 
jurisdiction was in e.ssence arbitral. IVithin the law the sbite recognizeil corporate autonomy. ( Ireek law 
sanctioned distress for execution of arbitral decisions, and rc.sist.iuce would, at Athens, ground the (Sik;; 
e ^ ov \ i ] s . The Egyptian evidence is defective, but corporate statutes contain a clause which, .1. Pautsch 
has shown, corresponds to the Kadairep H SiVi;s clause of later contracts. 

P. \T. Durr’s The charitable foundation^: of By:" ntiunt, in Cambridge Legal Essays. (Heifer, 

Cambridge, 1926), contains a good account of the statute law of the earlier Byzantine jieriod, but hardly 
uses the papyrological materials. 

ii. Status Uhertatis. Important corrections of P. Frcib. In, published by .]. P.xrtscm, Stcgslnr. Heahi- 
herger Ah., 1916, 3.") ff. ( = P. Mkyf.r, Juristische J‘a/,yri, no. 7 ; cj. .1. Pautsch, P. Stra^sb. a, 112, IF are 
given by U. Wilckex in his Apjiendix !T05-7,' to .1. Partsch’s P. Freib. in (1927 : see above, S 3.'. 

iii. Statn-s ciritatis. E. Bickebmann-, AA’/iiC, Vlll, 216-39 : Der Hciriiatsrermcrh and die sfaaisrerhtliche 

Stellung der Hellenen i>n ptolernaischen Agypten, is an important study i.f the light thrown on the legal 
position of Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt by the “ home-styles ■’ appended to their names. The home-style 
was for the natives a Greek innovation : .r Greek is Atoreinos Atoreirioc MuKeScor, <i native is iieri'ijrri? 
'Apeinv TO)v drrb Biros. So \ve have two forms, ail ethnic and a local, corn's) lomhiig to the two classes of 
the population recognized by Euergotes II, ri:. Greeks lindiiding immigraiits goiier.dly,- and natives. Tlio 
ethnic style, showing a foreign iruTpls. w.ts jiresorved by the descendants of immigrants, but with a 
growing inexactitude which indicates the legal unimportance of e.xactitude. From the legal jioint of view 
Macedonian, Cretan, Athenian, were simply Hellenes, and this shows that the doctrine of iiersonality of 
law, alleged but unproved for Greece, never applied to Greeks in Egypt. They w'ere foreigners subject to the 
common, i.e royal, law, and their imagined [lersonal l.iw was not even subsidiary, .^uch privilege as the 
Greek had was due to office, not to race; that i.s why the ethnic .style is regul.irly acconniaiiicd by mention 
of office, except with rijs tViyori/s, which of it.sclf implies office. F.iter the Greeks beg.in to ,idd to their 
own ethnic style the local style which they li.id invented for tlie natives. 'I'he n.itive is o iietru twc dn'i, 
the Greek "EXXjjv rav diro. This show.s the gradual absorption of the Greeks into the native iiopul.ition 
owing to the absence of racial privilege, so that, as Livy says: Mucedonci in Avgyptios degenera runt, and 
the style adopted by the Roman census fir the uiiiver.sally 6 heiva tou' oTrei. 

The unexpected turn given by E. Bickermaxn to the controversy between P. Meyer and G. t^EoRk 
on the interpi-etation of P. Gie.ssen 40, i {Journ'd, xiii, 114-10) lias occasioned articles by A. .'sKuui-; and 
G. DE Sanctis in Uir. di Fil., liv, X.S iv v1920i, 471 87 and 48.'^-.')ilO. A. Seori.; accepts Bn Hermann's 
contention that the restor.ition TvnXnevpdrav in 1. 9 is p.il.ieographically imjiossible, hut not the rest of 
his position, namely that we have here not the Const. Ant., but a .suj)i>leiuentary edict of 213. [bir him 
the only question is of the exact extent of population covered by the exeeptiirii of dediticii in 1. 0. Hero 
he comes near to Bickeriiaxx, holding that what is meant is not the mass of the peas.iiitry, the Xnoypa- 
(jioipevoi in Egypt, the capite ceusi elsewhere (P. Meyer's view;, hut only harbariaii.s who, having 
.surrendered at di.scrction, had been incorporated in the army' or been settled within the ernjiire. G. DE 
Sanctis, on the other hand, accejits substantially Bickermann’s whole [losition, adding th.it the Const. 
Ant., even condensed, must have been too long for our jiapyrus. The strongest objection made by 
A. SegrL is in the matter of date. If we move the date of P. Gies.sen 40, i to late 213, how comes it to I.e 
followed by a second constitution of 212 and that by a third of 215 1 De Sanctis therefore revises 
Bickermann’s chronology : the defective preamble refers to the Geta episode, and if the word vIkij in 1. 4 
is unsuitable, it i.s after all only a conjecture. The same word in 1. 10 refers, ho holds, iierh.-qis to no 
■specific event, but to hojies for the coining ( ternmii canqiaigii. In conclusion he ob.servcs that Bickeum.xnn’s 
interpretation squares with the policy of tlie Severi, with Caracalla'.s militarism and with Kostovtzeff’s 
general conception of inqierial history. 

J. X"ogt, reviewing Bickermann’.s the.sis in O'nomon, iii (1927), 328-34, jironounees against its jiositive 
side, and controverts it.s arguments more directly than A. Segre. Thus he denies that the religious 



152 BIBLIOGKAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 


luutivps alleged in the preamble are incompatible with the Const. Ant., and he defends the view that the 
vUt] of 1. 10 is the Geta episode; against the enigmatic words of 1. 6 : [do-]dicis ear i)[7r]e}(rc'Xd[aicr]ir eif tovs 
f/j-oi's ilr[dp](ii7ria)f, which form Bickermann’s strongest argument, he sets the generality of the phrase 
[Kara oi/tovpe'r^r. But on the exception of dediticii in 1. 9 he fully accepts Bickeriiann’s criticism of 
the usual view, which is much too wide, especially if dediticii is taken, as in a constitution it must be, in 
its strict legal sense. In that sense the Greeks in Egypt were dediticii too. The exception must be taken, 
as G. SEGRh said, with the words immediately preceding it, though what those words may be is now 
quite uncertain. Thus there was no exception of dediticii in the Const. Ant., though some exceptions 
were left to be implied by the general principles of Roman law, and that is why our literary tradition of 
the Const. Ant. says nothing al>out them. 

In Rec. hist., CLV (1927), 403-4, Ch. Lecrivaix regards Bickerm.xxn as having established the 
universality of the Const. Ant., but is not satisfied with the corollary that Caraoalla in the present 
supplementary edict excluded a class of soldiers. 

An even more radical view than Bickermaxx's is adopted by R. L.xqceur : Das erste Edikt Caracallas 
mif deni Papyrus Gissensis .tp) {Xachr. d. Giessener HochschvlgeseUschaft, vi, 1927, 15-28). The text has 
nothing at all to do with the Const. Ant., for the motives in the preamble have, according to Roman ideas, 
no possible connection with an extension of the eiritas. It is un-Roman to imagine that the glory of the 
gods is increa.sed by an extension of their worshippei-s, and, for that matter, cii'es were not necessarily of 
the state cult (Jews), and non-citizens were not exempt from duty to the .state gods. He holds then that 
the clause of 1. 6 : [oajaiciff iav v[jr]eaTeXd[£t)o-]jr els tovs ifiovs dr[dp]&)7rovff, refers to the infiltration of 
non-Roman cults, and that what tlie emperor projioses to do in gratitude is to endow them with otficial 
recognition and to abolish the police measures {alrlas 1. 2) against their exercise. This position is very 
attractively .supported in the body of the article, but we must not forget that even before the discovery of 
the papyru> a connection between tlie extension of eiritas and that of the state cults had been observed 
(U. IIiLCKEX, Archiv, V, 1913, 428). And it remains for Laquel'r to make what he can of the rest of 
the paiiyru.s. He doe.s this with great ingenuity, but ail depends on his as.sertion that the r of the supposed 
7r[oXir]v('ar in 1. 8 is irreconcilable with the remains before etm. Till this is admitted, his whole hypothesis 
nuLst be rejected. 

iv. Marriage. E. CT-q’s article mentioned below (G) deals with an application of the Egyptian law 
of dowry to international relations. In O.L.Z., .x.x.x (1927), 217-21, M San Nicol6’s Vorderasiatisches 
Rechtsgut in den agyptischen Eherertragen der Perserzeit traces into Egypt an old Babylonian procedure 
for divorce imti.ited by a formal declaration of “h.atred”: this, in contra.st to Jewish law, is made more 
frequently in our examples by the wife than by the husband. The fifth century Aramaic papyri of 
Elephantine show the Semitic colonists following the Babylonian version of the custom, and the technical 
word for “ hatred " recurs between the Persian conquest and Alexander in each of the four demotic papyri 
dealing with marriage. In Ptolemaic times the technical word is not so generally used, and only by the 
husband. It occurs neither in the pre-Persian hieratic documents nor in the Greek Ptolemaic papyri, 
though in the latter we have similar expressions. It follows that the technical “ hatred ” was an orientalism 
introduced by the Persians and expelled by Greek influence, and it is to Persian influence that we should 
attribute the independence of the Egyptian wife, including her right to divorce. In demotic papyri of 
the latei Ptolemies we find the wife owning separate property, and against L. Mitteis (Gritndz., 211) 
P. Lonsdorfer i (363 B.c.) shows this feature before the times of Greek influence: it has its origin in 
Iiirther Asia, where the con.stitution of a wife’s .separate property is seen as early as the Hamurabbi 
dynasty. 


Important new illustration of the adaptation of the Greek marriage in Egypt is furnished by P. Freib 
III, 29AJ1 (§ 3 above). According to J. Partsch’s brilliant introduction they form a bridge between 
the primitive Greek document seen in P. Elephantine 1 and the hellenistic P. Tebt 104 (end of second 
century B.c.), In his appendix (p. 60) U. Wilcken accepts and reinforces Partsch’s general conclusion 
that we have in the present documents Greek marriage contracts which, under the influence of native 
law, create a free marriage, to be followed by a full marriage : distinction between hgoXoyia yhgov and 
<TvTr/pa4>i, avvoiKiaiov, which reappears 150 years later in the Alexandrian avyxo>pi,aeis of B.G.F. iv, 1050 ff. 

V. .S’taPo, familiae. In Ptolemaic times soldiers despatched on duty enjoyed, as did their wives and 
children (o! iWoaKev,,), privileges which recall the medieval pririlegium ermis. These are studied bv 
E. Kiessi.ing, Archir, viii, 240-9; Aposkevai uad der prozes-weehtJ iche Stellung der Ehef raven im ptole- 
vvnirhen Agypteu. He contribut.-s to the more exact interpretation of P. Hal. i, 124-56, with the help of 



BIBLIOGRAPHY : GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 153 

P. Bad. IV, 48, but hi.s chief thesis, again.st Sejieka, Ptoleni. Pi-ozessrecht, '2^o, is that the wife of an absent 
soldier would neither have been specially protected against being .sued, nor in certain cases have been 
secured a right to sue, unless in general a wife would have been in the.se niatter.s under the tutelary 
ov'ersight of her husband. He thinks that the argument may be extended to Egypti.ins as well as to 
Greeks. 

Taking ;is his text F. Mahoi's article on Ej'po^iti (above, A iv), 1’. Focrxier draw.s a gruesome 
picture of this ancient form of ^Malthusianism, .showing how moderate and indirect the legislation even of 
a Constantine had to be in the face of so inveterate a practice. The article doe.s not deal with 

papyrological material ; M propos ties e.vptisiti. Rev. hUl. dr. fr. et etr., X.S. v i 3U2-M. 

Albertoni, Lti apoleruxis. Contriheto tdln sturin delln fiimiijlni , so cited HnU. 1st. Dir. Rum., XXXV 
(1927), 247, I have not .seen. 

C. Property. 

The only topic to be mentioned under this head is the .system of publicity applied to the transfer of 
interests in land. Discussion has mostly taken the form of reviews of the recent works of .1. Partsch, 
E. ScHoNBACEH and Friedr. vox IVoe.ss {Journtd, xi, 99; xiii, IIG. See P. Meyer’s Berir/a, Z. Ritr.-Sf., 
XLVI, 192G, 323, 333). There is however in Aegyptus, viil 11927', 43-88, a substantive .irticle by 
G. Flore :_Sull'i jii^XwdijKri tqiv lyKTria-fatv, and current literature has not yet had time to take account of 
U. AVilckex’s new edition of P. Freib. iii, 36-7 (above, § 3,i, with an important commentary. There is 
also B.G.U. VII, 1573, published at the end of 1926, to be reckoned with. This considerably mutilated 
text of A.D. 141-2 contains the official documents relating to an epi3a&(la up to an advanced stage of the 
process. It shows several novelties in detail, but the general scheme, as outlined by A. B, .Schwarz 
{Hypothek uad Eypallagmu, 111 etc.) and L. Mitteis yUrnudz., IGlj on the strength of P. Flor. 56, is 
contirmed. P. 0.xy, xvil, 2134 furnishes a fresh dhistration of an application by a creditor for the 
registration at Ale.xandria of a secured loan (c«. a.d. 170). 

G. Flore’s article agrees in principle with E. Schoxbauer in depreciating the Ptolemaic publicity 
system, maintaining that it was the Romans who realized the legislative ideal, by creating in the /3i3Xio- 
6r]Kr{ fyKTrjfTfaiv a Central office for the collection of deeds, to which notaries and parties could appeal with 
confidence. After examining the Edict of Mettius Rufus, P. Oxy. 237, he has sections on kutoxiu iimpedi- 
ments to enitjTdkpa), diru'ipatf)!] (notiticatioii to parties of the perfection of the contract; also inscription 
of the property in the ^morpcoparn), irapddfirif ('marginal entry;, and the special registers of catoecic land. 
He concludes that the function of the was not that of a registry of title or of deeds, but simply 

the prevention of frauds by publicity given to the traiismi.ssiou of re.d rights. 

In Z. f. vgl. Rechtsw., xlii (1926), 301-2, M. .Sax Nicolo gives a very short and rather unfavourable 
review of E. Schoxbaheh's Beitr. z. Oesdc. d. Liegeitsc/iafisrecldrs <Jovriud. xni, 116). The .same work is 
reviewed at greater length, along with J. P.vrtsch’s Die qriec/i. Pi'blizitiit der Gruiidstitcksvertrage iui 
PtolerniierrecAte {Festschr. f. Lead, Freiburg, 1921), by XV. Klxkel in (.faomon, ill (19271, 145-65. He 
considers that the chief service rendered by P.irt.sCH is the linking iiji of ancient Greek jiractice through 
the Ptolemaic with the imperial Roman, and that it is in the field of Greek law that he is supreme. In 
the Ptolemaic field he is less successful than .schoxbalek. On the ipiestion of the iit,i\LuOijKrj fyKTTjlTfUiV 
he finds substantial agreement between Schoxbauer and Friedr. vox XVoes.s, in spate of the difference 
of their methods. In the detail of the I’tolemaic period he i.s against Partsch’.s view of but, 

though agreeing with Schoxbauer’s doctrine of KUTaypat^i), he thinks that his restoration of P. Hal. i, 24.5 
is unpiroveu. On the Roman period he holds that SchoXb.vcer is successful in showing the continuance 
of the Ptolemaic Karaypatpl] as the constitutive act, but dissents from his hypiothesis as to the origin of 
the liiiiXiodrjKrj. He also accepts Schoxbauer's doctrine (against A, B. .Schwarz's) that Sijpwtor xP'l/m- 
TLtrpdi was necessary to the validity of dealings with laud, and he regards his theory of hypothec as 
tempiting, but not piroven. 

To complete the picture, there is a review of Friedr. vox M'oess's Untersutdiungen nher dns Urkunden- 
tresen und den Puhlizitntsaehntz ini runiischen Agypten (Munich, 1924) by P. Koschaker in O.L.Z., xxix 
(1926), 737-9. The central question is of the O/kt-., which was .set upi at the beginning of 

the empire in the districts of Egypit for the jiurposos of pmvate dealings in land. L. Mitteis thouoht 
that inscripition there was necessary for effect as against third piartie.s, not inter p'trte.s. li'oKss holds that 
it was not a registry of title, but rather a supervi.sory office, collecting the notarial deeds of its district 
and serving, besides fi.scal and other purposes, to sicstematise the examination of the titles of alienors of 

.loiirn. of Eg\[it. Arch. xiv. 


20 



154 BIBLIOGEAPHY: GEAECO-KOMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 


land and olives. Koschaker agi’ees in principle, and accepts the contention that the decisive moment 
for the acquisition of property was tlie entry of the conveyance in the notarv-’s register of contracts, not 
registration in the jiif-iKioQrjKr). 

See also above, A v. 

D. Ohligntiops. 

i. Cmiipi'amise. To the Rev. iVhist. dv dv. (Tijdsehrift voor Rechtsgesehiedenis'', N.S. VII, 1927, 432-45, 
A. Arthur Schiij.er contributes .1 Coptic Dialysis, a translation with commentary of Cruji and 
STEi.\noRFi'’s Kuptisrhe Reehtsufkanden 38, being a settlement of an inheritance by agreement. 

ii. J.inse. Fresh Ftolemaic leases will he found in P. Freib. in, 21-5. 

V. Arangio-Ruiz finds in P. Oxy. xvi, which he reviews in Rir. di Fil., Liv, X.S. iv (192C), 96-9, 
confirmation of the importance in agricultural Egypt from the fifth century onwards of leases at the will 
of the lessor. As he observes, the lessees at will form an intermediate class between the upper class 
emphyteatue and the coloiti ndscvipticii, being free in -status, but in clear economic dependence on the 
lessors. That such holdings were, however, stable, he neatly deduces from P. Oxy. xvi, 1965, 14, where 
he rightly I'ejects the editors' emendation. The Rev. hist. dr. fv. et etr., X.S. v (1926), 604-5, summarises 
an address by F. MartRoye on the connecteil subject of the earliest legislation against patronage in w'hich 
Egypt is prominent, though the .short rc[>ort. cites no papyri. 

In the volume dedicated to Swoboda (325-35, above B i), EfioN 'Weiss under the title 'Upa Svyypacpii 
studie.s from the juristic side a Delian inscription published in full by Ziebahth {Hermes, lxi, 87). It is 
a lt.v locafioiiis of temple land offered under the Athenian administration of Delos, which began in 166 b.c. 
Some papyrological parallels are adduced. 

iii. Ride. Jlentioned in Re,-, hist. dr. fr. et etr., X.S. v (1926), 152, is a Paris thesis by E. Popesco: 
La fonctioii penitentiel/e di-s arrhes dans la rente sons Jnstinien ; much the .same subject was exjiounded by 
(1. C'oHMi. in an address reported ibid., 585-7. 

P. O.xy. svii, 2136 of .a.d. 291 should be noted: a sale of a boat is put in the form of a lea.se for 
50 years pnr^iurpacri'a'i. The explanation must be, as the editor says, some special advantage attaching to 
the nominal ownership of a boat. 

iv. ti'iaroiitee. Caution nemevt uiutuel et solidarite {Melanges Cornil, i, 157-80), by E. Cuq, treats of 
ciXKTjXeyyii]. ,i form of obligation which first appears late in the Ptolemaic period. CuQ holds that it came 
from .Mc.sopotami.i, having at first oidy the eflfect which it had in its birthplace, namelv to guarantee the 
creditor against the ab.sence of one of the debtors, not again.st his insolvency. That last risk would be met 
either by a special cl.iuse or by the guarantee of a third party. But in the long run dWriXfyyvrj came to 
be employed in Egypti.m practice to set up Roman solidarity. The difficult responsum of Papinian 
D, 45. 2, 11 pr, is in point, also Nov. 99, which Cuq explains as an attempt to reduce dXXijXeyyi'i; to its 
original function. 

E. Ldieritance. 

The Rer. hist. dr. fr. et etr., N.S. vi (1927), 589-91, reports an address by .J. Pirexse : (Rielques 
observations sur le regime des successions dans Fancienne Egypte. Denying the alleged matriarchal character 
of even the earliest known Egyptian law of .succe.s.sioii, Pirenne discerns in its evolution from Dyn II 
to Ityii. X.KV an oscillation between individualism, understood in the sense of division amon<rst children 
females included, and feudalism, the tendency of which is to keep property undivided in the hands of the' 
ekie.st male. 

B.(I. r. VII contains .several documents concerning succession in the second century of our era 166-'’ 
A.D. 182, is an acknowledgement of payment of one .silver talent on account of a legacy in a Roman will' 
The tablets from which 1695 has been composed show so small a part of the Latin will vD 157 of a 
mils tiassis Augnstae Alexa ndri aae that nothing much can be derived from it, and 1690, also composed 
of fragmentary tablets, only affords .some parallels from a Latin will of the second century with that of 
Dasumiiis. 1055, more complete, gives the Greek version, taken a.d. 169 at its opening, of a will which 
provokes comparison with that of C. Longinus Castor. The influence of the Latin original, compulsory at 
this date, is plain. Our text begins with legacies {bidtopi KaraXeiTra). In 11. 19-33 and at the end are 
noteworthy provisions for the te.stator’s funeral, and the mancipatio familiae shows the fictitious price' a.s 
(TT]<TTepTiav vnippav ^fiXi'oir iii.stead of a. v. cW. This is probably due to a faulty expansion of the 
numeral a, ,ind an explanation is thus suggc.sted of P. Ilaml). 73, 14. The end of the minutes does not 
name the witne.sses. The opening took place in the ('ae.sareuiii of the k6>p^ <IuXn8e'X<iem, the first meoi;,!! 
of such an institution in a village. ^ 



BIBLIOGIIAPHY : GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (192G-1 927) 155 

F. L’rofedare. 

L.ist year (Journal, xill, 116) a eoiisiderable literature concerning P. Oxy. xvi, ISTli SI (early Iil)ellary 
lu-ocedure) was noted : P. Collixet, Rec. hist, dr.fr. et etr., N.S. iii (1024), T-iO-o ; L. Wengek, Rarm/ta 
Luinhroso, 325-34 and Zivilprozrss, 263, n. 14, 267, n. 26; A. Steixwenter, Festschr. f. Hu niinsrk. 36-51 ; 
add P. Meyer, Z. Sar.-St., xlvi (1926), 344-5. We have further a notice by V. AR,vx<;io-Rurz, Rir. di 
Fit., Liv, N.S. IV (1926), 92-6. The striking fact is that these documents show Ju^.tinian^^ libellary 
procedure in application a century before him. The editors .suggest that the later and simpler procedure 
wa.s first introduced for cases of debt (more exactly, money lent); Coelixet (723) ob.serves that three of 
the cases point to special difficulty in carrying out the then normal litis denu ntiatio ■, Steixwexthr (39) 
draws attention to C.T. 2, 4, 3 and 6 (a.d. 371 and 406), which create a class of case freed from the 
ordinary procedure, a class which includes debt on chirograph or simple nmliuoa. Ar.vxoid-Rl'iz, how- 
ever, denies the possibility of inferring a special character for our ca.ses from these few and fragmentary 
documents. He points out that, though 1876-9 are only minutes of proceedings in court, in which the 
lihellm is not recorded in full, still the generality with which the plaintiff’s claim is .stated makes it 
unlikely that the Ubellus itself, at this date, named the exact action brought. .So far he agrees with 
CoLLINET, but he rightly adds that we must not argue from pre-.lustinian practice to the more ronianized 
procedui'e of Justinian. In particular, he refuses to sec in the very uncertain word edantur read at the 
end of 1877 a reference to the technical editio artionis: the reference is merely to the magistrate’s order 
that the present minutes be commuuicatod to defendant (so also Steixwexter, 38). Defendant is put to 
his election, either to settle or to defend, and the alternatives are illustrated by 1880 and 1881. Editors 
and writers agree in noting that the defendant’s jSt/SXt'or, his arrippi/o-it or liheUus contradictorius, is 
a simple notification of intention to defend, not a pleading. Steix'Wextek (45-6) has valuable remarks 
on the cautio juratoria which accompanies the di/n'ppijcrts of 1881 — a forerunner of the caatio indicia sisti- - 
and on the eft'cct of the .settlement in 1880. He is inclined to regard tlie doni.ind made in 1879, 7 in 
respect of Tre^evyoTa irpayparu as a demand for uiissio ui real. 

The chapter i.in Ptolemaic procedure which one might expect to find in A. Steixwexier’s Din Streit- 
bemidigung durch Urteil, iSchiedsspritch xtad. Vergleich tiack griechischera Rechtn (Journal, xiIl, 116) is, 
according to a laudatory review by M. S.xx Micolo in Z. f. i-gl. Reahfsw., xliii (1927), 293-6, reserved for 
a future separate work, though the evidence of prc-Ptolemaic Egyptian procedure appears to be utilized in 
places. 

G. Pnblic Law. 

The iiapyrus copy of the Edict of Tiberius Julius Ale.xander, published by U. Wilckex in Z. Zar.-St., 

XLli (1921), 124, is reproduced in I’.G.U. vii, 1563. P. Oxy. xvii contains .some documents of .i similar 
class; 2104, a rescript of Severus Alexander; 2105, an edict of the prefect M. Petronius Honoratus of 
147-8 ; 2106, a letter of an early fourth-century prefect. 2110 records proceedings of the Oxyrhynchite 
senate in 370., 

In Sprat, VIII (1927), 143-62, E. CuQ discusses La condition juridviue dn la Coele-Syrin an tutaps dv 
Ptolemte V Epiphaae. Antiochus, after reconquering thi.s country, con.stitutcd it dowry for his daughter 
Cleopatra on her marriage with Ptolemy in 193-2. The problem of the consequent status of the country 
can be solved by taking this transaction seriously as constitution of dowry'. There was no cession of 
territory to Egypt because by Egyptian law the wife’s dowry did not become the jiroperty of the hu.shaud. 

In the two volumes of Pacly-MTssowa which appeared in 1927 (26, Lodoroi-Lysimachides, and 
5, Silacensis-Sparsus) I find nothing relevant except coll. 1490-3 of the article Lositng (KXi)pmtrtr, sortitio) 
signed Ehrexberg. Mention is made of the use of the lot in the attribution of liturgical offices and of 
compulsory leases and transport; also of its use for division of inheritances (H. Kreller, Erbnwhtlickc 
Untersuchimgcn, 87 ff.). But this last was only a cirstomary extra-legal msage. In fact, in the iiublic life 
of Egypt sortitio played but a small part. 

In a review of Fbiedr. vox XVoess’s Asylwesen [Jour,ud, xiii, 116) Friedb. Oertel, Deutsche L.-Z., , 

1927, 1713-22, also sums up the intervening literature. He con.siders that XAoes.s has made many good 
points, especially the connection he has established between a.sylum and personal execution, but that he 
has gone wrung on others, notably the relation of “Church” and State. Nor has he proved that asylum 
is of ancient Egyptian origin. 

La terreur dc la iiutgie nu n" siecle, by Jules Maurice, in Rev. hist, dr.fr. et etr., N.S. vi (1927), 108-20 
dealing with the legislation against and prosecutions for magic, may, though it does not mention papyri' 
be of service. py Zulu eta. ” 


20—2 



156 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 


7. Palaeography axd Diplomatic. 

SchubartV Griei'hifcke Palaeographie has been reviewed by the following: P. Maas (O.L.Z., xxx, 
1927, 93S-9), AY. AVeixberger (Phil. Woch.. 1926, 12:50-1). and G. Zereteli {Gnoiaon. Il, 1926, 482-90) 
who doubts some of hi.s dates and has other criticism to ofi’er on details of the work. 

AV. AA'eixberger contributes an article Zur GrienhUche Tachjigraphie to Ph\l. Woch., 1927, 7:53-6. 
This is a commentary on the article by Mentz (Die hellenistische Tachygrctphie in Archie, VIII, 34-.o9), and 
deals chiefly with P. Berol. 5464 and the nine wax tablets at Hallo recently deciphered (H. 1-9). 

A\'. .^CHUBART has written an article of a jiopular character — Die Schdaschrift altgriechischer Bucher. 
This, although only an outline, make.s an extremelv lucid and conci.se introduction to the subject. He 
gives some very useful fac.simile.s. Berliner Museen, Ber. <(. d. prenss. KonsUnmml ., XLViii, 1927, 40-5. 

F. Babixgeh, in O.L.Z.. xxx (1927), 179-80, reviews GrohmaXx’.s Allgemeine Einfahrimg in die 
orahischcii Papyri vehst GrundzUgen der arabischen Diploniatik (AA'ieu, F. Zollner, 1924. Pji. iv + 108. 4to), 
which is rejirinted from the Corpus Pupyroruni Raiueri. (I ha^■e not yet seen this.) 

E. Bethe in a review of H. Gerstinger’s Dir grieehische Buchmalerei (Phil. Woch., 1927, HX)5-10) 
discns.se.s the use of illustration in papyrus rolls. He combats the .suggestion th.it the illustration of 
literary texts was usual only in codices. He refers to an unjuiblished fragment of a Eomance at Pai'is 
(B. W. Siippl. gr. 1294) illustrated with miniatures. Reference might have been made to the Johnson 
Botanical Papyrus and B.AI. Pap. 113 in this connection. The former is rather fully discussed by 
C. Singer (J.H.S., xlvii, Pt. i, 1927) in an article on The Herbal in Antiquity (1-52). 

A. C.vldar.a''s I connotati pcrsonuli is reviewed by AA’. Schebari (O.L.Z., xxx, 1927, 938-9) anti 
.1. Hasebroek (Gnoinon, 1927, 494-6). Both of the.se draw the comparison between the work in question 
and Ha.sebroek’s own Signalemeiit. 

M. E. Dicker. 


8. Lexicography and Grammar. 

The .second volume of F. Prelsigke, Wbrterbtick der griecldscken Papyriisarkmideu, has been completed 
by the publication of the third Lieferung (crwoiKeoia — The promised third volume will contain the 
lists of technical terms (names of officials, taxes, etc.) to which cross-reference.s have been given in vols. i 
and II. A^ol. i. Lief. 1, is reviewed by R. Bcltmann in Theologische Lit.-Zeituiig, li (1926), 491. 

Part in of the new edition of Liddell and Scott (see Journal, xin, 117) has aiipeared, bringing the work 
down to fifirfXio-TiJs. Part ii is reviewed by P. AIaas in J.H.S., xlvii )1927), 154-6, and by AA’. Schmid in 
Phil. Woch., XLVIII (1927), 225-47. 

Part VI of -AIoulton and AIilligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testauient, is reviewed by H. 1. Bell 
in Journal, xill (1927), 271-2. 

E. AIayser, G rummatik der grieehisekea Papyri aus der Ptolemueneit, ll, 1, is reviewed in Deutsche 
Litteratur-Zeituuy, 1027, 15.58-60, by AY. Schubart, who praises the work hut criticizes some details. 
AIay.ser has sornetime.s classified sentences according to their German translation instead of according to 
their Greek content. 

E. Preuschen, Griechisch- Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Xeuea Testameuts (.see Journal, 
XIII, 118) and L. Eadermacher, Seutestamentliche Grainniatik (2<= Aufl., AA’ieii, 192.5;, are reviewed by 
H. D.elehaye) in Anal. Bollaad., xLiv (1926), 140-2. Radermacher's book is reviewed at much greater 
length by A. Deukunneh in G.G.A., 1926 (No. iv-vi), 129-52, who expres.ses dissatisfaction with it. 

Latin words and names occurring in Greek jiapyri have been collected by B. AIeinersmann, Die 
tatvinischca Wbrter und Waraen in den grieehischen Papyri { Papy rusinstitut d. U/iic. Heidelberg, 1 i 
Leipzig, 1927 (cf. Journal, xill, 118). 

An article by Paul Jouon, Quelqms aramaismes sousjacents au grec des e'caiigdes (Rcch. <le Se. ,x-l 
1927, 210-29), though not papyrological, is w'orth mentioning here. 

O. Gradenwitz has .shown (Archie, viil, 2-50), with the help of the uupubli.shed Alnuich Index to the 
Novellae of Ju.stiuian, that rdiz aX[j;d€i'Jais is the true restoration m B.G.U. 388, ii, 38 ft'., as this phrase is 
well attested and it is doubtful whether the formula rals oKrjBivdiz existed at all. 

F. Stiebitz points out (Phil. Woch., xlviii, 1927, 890) that iiviovaia in Sa-mmelbuch 5224, 20, is the 
equivalent of cffaria, w-hich occur.s in a very' .similar context in a Pompeian graffito (G./.Z., iv, suppl 4000 v) 
He discusses the bearing of this fact on the interpretation of eViovo-ior apros in the New Testament 

G. Ghedini adds a note (Aegyptias, viii, 175) to his already expressed opinion on a .special meanin>' of 
Tiin-os, with reference to P. Oxy. 1492, 11. 


K. AIcKenzie. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 157 

9. Gexerat. Works, Bibliography, Miscellaneous Motes on Papyrus Texts. 

M. Hohlwein, opening a course on papyrology in the Faciilte de Philosophie et Lettres at Liege, 
lectured on 27 Jan. 1927 on Ln papyruloglt; yrecgue. The lecture is published in Musee Beige, xxxi 
(1927), 5-19. 

J. M.ynteupfel, whose publication of some private letters at Berlin is noted above in S 3, has also 
published in Polish an introduction to the study of piapyrology with .i select bibliography and an account 
of discoveries. \V iajmaosri 'i-stepiie ; mLi-i-sh pupyrulogji ui Prieyhicl Histurye.ny, vi, 234-57. L. iM.VLHA 
has published a .sinnlar general .article in Arabic, the title of which is translated into French as Les 
Papyrus, lew fahriratinn, h-ur histoire, leur decoueerie, ce qu'ils eoatienaeut etc. in Bull. t<oc. Roy. d’Arch. 
d’Alex., Xo. 22, 236-312. 

Deissmanx's Lleht voni Osteii is reviewed by Braguet {Rcc. Hist. EccL, xxiii, 1927, 270-3). 

R. Helbing reviews Schub.ahtIs Die Papyri als Zeugen autiker Kidtur (Berlin, W.dter do Gruyter, 
1925, 88 jip. ; a guide to the papyrus collection in the Meues Museum, Berlin} in Phil. Woch., XLVii, 
1927, 627-8 (high praise). 

The Riirciilt'i Luiiihroso has been reviewed by H. I)[eleh.\ye] (.l/m/. Bolland. , xi.iy, 1926, 416-18; and 

ScHUBART {Gnomon, III, 1927, 99-105). P. M. Meyer reviews vols. v (3, l^-vii of Aegyptus {Z. renjl. 
Rechtsv., xliii, 465-7). 

Several references have been given above to the longer notices in the bibliography in By:.. Z., xxvi, 
425-75, but the whole bibliography, and not merely the portion devoted to [lapyri, will be found useful by 
students of Byzantine Egypt. 

The article by 0. Ghadenwitz on Preisigke’s Worterbuch referred to under S 6 above must bo 
mentioned here also, since it includes notes on individual papyrus texts (B.G.U. 613 = Mitteis, Ckr. 89, 
592, 361 = Mitteis, Chr. 92, Anih. 67, >, with suggestions for restoration. Preisigke’.s Wurtcrbvch und die 
Papyrologie in Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom., 1927, 177-89. Reference may also be made to the .same scholar’s 
note Tois aXTjSituLS oder rats' aXijOwais I .on B.G.U. 388, etc.) in Ar<'htr, vill, 250 (see 6, 8 above}. 

P. Jeknsiedt has publishcHl an interesting note on two of the Coptic letters (P. Loud. 1920, 1921; in 
Jews and Cliri.diaw in Egypt. He makes some ingenious suggestions for reading.' but several of these are 
irreconcilable with the pai'yri. Zu den koptischen Briefen an. den AR'letianer Paieil in C.-R. de V Acad, d. 
.Vc. de rU.R.S.li., 1927, 65-8. 

11. C. Horn mtikes an acute and on the whole convincing attempt to explain the ubscurilies in the very 
illiterate letter P.S.I. 835. Interpretation of a Papyru.s jAetter P.R.I. 835 Chaeremon to Philo.ceniis in 
Class. Phil., XXII (1927), 296-300. 

There are some papyrus references in a review by E. Herm.ynn {Pkd. Woeh., xLvn, 1927, 870-.5) of the 
Eestsehrift for P. Kketschiieh (1926). 

II. I. Bell. 


10. Miscellaneous and Personal. 

In the article on Pheisigke’s M’orterbuch referred to in the previous section Ghadenwitz makes three 
useful sugge.stioiis for papyrologieal subsidia. One is for a contrary-index, in which the words are arranged 
the opposite wat' to an ordinary index. This would often be a very great help in lestoring a mutilated 
word of which only the conclusion remains. Caitier’s Gazophylaciuni is of very little u.se for this purpose, 
as it is too full, contains many “ ghost ’’ words, and naturally does not include the many words which occur 
only in papyrus texts. The .seccjiid is for an index of vermicular Yvords with tlieir Greek equivalents. His 
idea is that a German-Greek index should lie coniiiilcd, with key-numt>ers to the words, and that from this 
should be prepared indexes in the other priiicijial languages, so that ou looking up, e.g., an English word 
one would readily tind the corresponding German and so the Greek. This also would he of great service to 
editors. The third proposal is for a “ C’entralstelle ” in each country to which .scholars engaged in papvro- 
logical work could notify their results in the correction of texts, etc., and which could transmit such 
results to an international centre. This suggestion deserves hearty support, though it may he difficult to 
carry out. Who in this country, for example, where papyrologists are so few, can be found to undertake 
the responsibility '. I am glad to learn from Ghadenwitz himself that the iii-st scheme at least is secured. 

Prof. Kalufleisch informs me that Kling is engaged on the second Heft of the Giessen papyri, which 
is to include juristic texts prepared by O. Eger (mostly Byzantine, largely from the Archive of Flavia 
Anastasia). In a third Heft Glaue will publish an unknown Early Christian text. The Janda papvrus 
collection has now acquired some Zeuo papyri, many of them fragmentary. 



158 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO- ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 

JL HojtBK.RT gives .111 iiccount of the acquisitions of the Bibliothequo de papyrologie grecque of the 
Foudation egyptologique reiiie Elisabeth <it Brussels. They include soiuc papyri, chiefly Coptic but a few 
Greek. Chronique d’Egijptf, ll (1927), 192-4. 

Kefereuce was wade iii § 9 to a coui'se iu j^iapyrology liy Hohlwein at Liege. A syllabus of a course on 
juristic papyroloyy <it Maples by AraxgIo-Rciz is given in xiegyptus, vill (1927), 175-6. 

The Egypt E.xjiloi'atiou Society’s next Graeco-Roiiian puiilicatiou will be vol. i of J. G. Tait’s Oatraca. 
This will iiicluile ,i 11 the Ptolemaic ostraea in the Bodleian and several other collections ; the Bodleian Roman 
and Byzantine are reserved for vol. ii, which will contain the indexe.s. The volume is now passing through the 
press. Xext .ifter it will be published the extensive Theocritus papyrus found by Johnson at Antinoopolis, 
transcribed by him and with a commentary' by Huni. The volume will also contain some smaller frag- 
ments. 7Vhcii this is tini.shed work will be resumed on the important vol. he of the Tebtunis Papyri, 
which it h.is been arranged to i.s.sue, like vol. I, as a joint publication of the U uiversity of California and 
the Egy-pt Exploration Society. 

It is .igaiii neces.sary to record with regret heavy losses by death. Dr. Hogakth was known chiefly as 
an archaeologist and traveller, but lie worked with Grenfell and Hunt in the Fayyfim, and was also an 
.ictive and valued supporter of the Graeco-Roman branch of the Egypt Exiiloration Society, at whose 
committees he was a regular attendei". He lectured for the Society on Xaucr.itis only a y-ear ago. 

Prof. Kelsey of Michigan was also not himself definitely' a papyrologist, though he edited a valuable 
L.itin waxed diptych; Imt ho had done more than any other man to organize the purcha.se of papyri for 
American libraries, and the already large collections at the Universities of Michigan, AVisconsin, 
Columbia, Cornell, and Princeton arc chiefly owing to his initiative, energy, and organizing capacity. His 
death, like Dr. Hooarth’.s, was quite unexpected, and was learned with sincere regret by all who had the 
privilege of knowing him. The pre.sent writer, who had been brought into sqiecially close connection with 
him and had spent an unforgettable fortnight in his company at Cairo, cannot forbear to pay a tribute to 
the charm and kindliness of a singularly lovable personality. His death is a heavy blow to the causes 
which he had at heart, but it is plea.sant to record that for the present season at least excavations are 
being I ontinued ,it K6m 'W'ashlm (Aashimh Obituary notices of Prof. Kel.sev have been published by 
H. .-G Sanders (Michigan Mumiius, .xs.xiii, 1927, 6’45-7; Claa-s. Phil., xxii 1927, 308-10) and 
J. G. Winter (Class. Joiirn., xxxiii, 1927, 4-6). 

Another archaeologist, who, though not a papyrologist, had done some work in the sphere of Graeco- 
Roiiuui Egypt, and who.se death was as prematime and unlocked for as that of the .scholars just mentioned 
was .\lr. A. G. K. Havier, a well-known and valued member of the Egypt Exploration Society. 

In K. KunsT (189-7-1926), the editor of the rhetorical papyri which formed the last volume of the 
Berlin cla,s.sical text.s, has been lost a younger scholar, and one of very great promise. An obituary notic* 
of him is published by il. Schuster {Bursian.s Jahresber., liii, 1927, Xekr. 1-12). 

Obituary notices of Grenfell have been published by A. S. Hunt (Proc. Brit. Acad., 1926-7, 8 jip. ; 
Aegyptus, viil, 1927, 114-16), Wilcken {Archiv, viii, 317), and S. R[EiN.iCH] (Rcc. Arch., S. v, .xxiv, 1926, 
76-7j: of Coiii'AHETTi by A. Xepi’I-Modona (Historia, Genn.-Marzo, N. I, Anno i-v, 75-8), G. Pasquali 
[Aegyptus, viii, 1927, 117-36,i, and E. Cocohia (Movetior, iii, 192(, 24.5-7, not acce.s.sible to me); of 
Pistelli by M. Morsa (Aegyptus, viii, 108-11); of Boll by A. Rehji {Bursians .Tahresber., liii, 1927, 
Mekr. 13- 43; bibliographyj ; and of Kruger l.>y W. Kunkel (Gnomon, ii, 1926, 495-6;. 


H. I. Bell. 



159 


BIBLIOGRAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT 

By jean CAPART 

Ce n’est pas sans une longue hesitation que j’ai accepte, ii la doniando du professe\ir K. LI. Griffith, do 
continuer la hib]iograT)hie de I’Egypte aneienne dans Ic Jwifiwl of Egyptimi Archaeology. La tache en ello- 
nieme est lourde, et je no suis pas sur de pouvoir y cojisacrer tout le temps qii’il faudrait. S'il fallait 
reellement analyser tons los travaux p\tblit^, elle serait impossible. Llais coiume, de plus en plus, tons los 
materiaux bibliographique.s sur I’Egypte se concentrent a la Bibliothtique de la Fondation Egyptologiqiie 
Heine Elisabeth, je me suis lai.sse convaincre jiar mon savant predecesseur qui m’a.ssurait que les outils 
de travail se groupaient plu.s coinpletement entre mes mains qu'entre le.s siennes. Je vais essayei’ done de 
mettre k la disposition des travaillours dans le dom.iine egyptologiqiie les renseignemeuts qui nous arrivent 
de toutes parts. J’espere que les auteurs voudront bion m’aider en me communicant au nioiiis la notice 
bibliographique de leurs travaux publie.s dans les revues non-egyptologique.s. 

Pour des rai.son.s pratiques, je demande de pouvoir presenter en un premier bulletin sommaire le tableau 
des publications parties en 1956 ot qui n’oiit pas encore ete citees dans la bibliographie 1925-0 publiee au 
volume XII. 

Une remarque encore. Faut-il lais.ser tomber de tros courts articles qui, ii premiere vuc, n'apporteut 
rien de nouveau? Ou bien, puisqu’il s'agit de bibliographic, faut-il au contrairo chercher a ne rien negliger 
de ce qui a ete public ? Colui qui fait une etude dctaillee d’un point a souvent constate qu’il pent y avoir 
int^rC't k confronter toutes les idees cniises par divers auteurs et qu'une remarque accessoire doniie qiielque- 
fois la solution d’un problenie. 

A regarder d’ensemble la bibliographie de 1926, on ue peut s’empecher de relever le iiomliro consideraUe 
de petites notes qui out ete publiees de toics cotes. On relevera, par contre. pen do litres importants de 
doctrine. A notre epoque, il semble que les chcrcheurs eprouvent, plus qu’autrefoi.s, le besom de publier 
sans retard toutes les remarques de detail qu’ils font au cours de leurs travaux. Xotre science, conime 
beaucoup, a une tendance k s’emietter. De la, peut-ctre, I’utilite qu'il y a de publier des bibliographies au.ssi 
completes que possible. Sauf indication contraire, la date des publications et des volumes de revues est 
toiijours 1926. 

( 'oXSERV.VriON. 

Knrnah. Le rapport de M. Pii.lkt sur les fmilles de 1924-.') et I’ctude d’A. Ll'C.ts, sur le ‘‘damage 
caused by salt” sont analyses dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 54. 

H. Chevrier, dams le Rapport sur les tramu.v de Karnnk (mars — niai, 1926) dans les ,!«)!. Serv., xxvi, 
119-30, decrit ses travaux de recherches k Finterieur du III' pylono, veritable carriere archcologique et 
epigraphique. II donne des details sur le temple et le.s statues d’Akhenaten trouves k I’est du grand temple 
d’Amon. 

Grand Sphin.r de Oizah. La polcmique au sujet de.s tr.ivaux de consolidation du sphinx de ( iizah a ilonnc 
naLssance a toute une stale d’article.s: .1. Mkier-Graefe, The Destna tion of the Sphinx, in Burlington ilng., 
XLIX, no. 281, 90-4 ; Seymour df. Ricci, Le Sphinx et M. Meier-Graefe, dans la Recue arcMologiipu;, xxiv, 
270-1 ; A disaster prerented : the Sphinx saved from collapse. The Sphin.r before and after excavation : secrets 
rexealed, in The Illustrated London Reus, no. 4541, 8tX)-l ; Le desensahlement du grand Sphinx, dans le 
Bulletin de Vart ancien et moderne, no. 725, 61 ; Autour da grand Sphinx, ibid., no. 727, 133 ; Le desen- 
sahlement du Sphinx, dans Beaux- Arts, 4' annee, no. 4, 51 ; Patehing up the Sphin.r, in .1 rt and d rchaeology, 
XXII, 194 ; Repairing the Sphinx, in Ancient Egypt, 1920, 14. 

Fodilles et Travaux- 

.1. H. Breasted expose sous le titre de Ln.vor and Armageddon. The Expansion of the Oriental Institute 
of the University of Chicago, in Art amd Archaeology, xxii, 154-66, le-s projets et les realisations grandioses 
que la liberalite de J. D. Rockefeller, juii., lui permet d’entreprendre. 

Sous la direction d’A. M. Lythgoe, les travaux du Metropolitan Museum of Art de New York out cti' 
poursui^s pendant la campagne 1924-5. Les fouilles a DOr el-Babrt sont d'-crites par H. E. Wixlock 



160 


JEAN CAPART 


celles de Lisht par Ambrose Lansing, les releves graphiques dans les tombes thebaines par X. de G. 
Davies: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Egyptian Expedition. 192Jf-T.i2o. Part II of the Bulletin 
of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Xew York. March. 

Les resiiltats generaux des fouilles de I’Egypt Exploration Society et de la British School of Archaeology 
in Egypt sont exposes Atms, Exhihition of Antiquities from Ahydos and T ell-el -Araarna 19:25-1926 ; Cata- 
logue of prehistoric antiquities from Upper Egypt., the Fayum and the Persian Gulf. 1926 ; British School 
of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Report of the 32nd year. London. 

Pierre Lacau, Les Trar<iu.c du Service des Antiquites de I’Egyptc eu 19 25-6, dans les Comptes Reudus 
de VAcademie, 277-8.'), resume les travaux executes ii Sakkarah, Karnak et an grand sphinx de Gizah. On 
trouvera quelques breves notices sur les fouilles de diverses localites dans Avsgrahiingen uud Eorschungen, 
dans V Archie fur Orie'ntforschung, ill, 22 et 134-5; C'H. Boredx, Fouilles en Egyptc, dans le Larousse 
rnensuel illu.stre, vil, no. 236, 241-2; G. df. Giroxcourt, Les recentes decouvertes an-heologirques fraacaises 
en Egypte, dans La Geographie, Janvier — fevrier, 76-7 ; ID., Les Secrets de la. rieille Egypte. Decoucertes 
archeologiqnes fruncaises, dans le Bidletin de la Soeie'te ge'ographique de Lille, avril— jinn, 73-104; Egypt 
Exca rations, dans The Antiquarian Quarterly, no. 9, 239-40; Egypte, dans la Revue archeologique, xxiv, 
79 ; G. .Jequier, Les Fouilles arche'ologiques en Egypte, dans le Bull, de la Soc. de Geographie de A’euchatel : 
Mouvelles decouvertes an pays de Tout-.Cnkh-A rnen, dans le Patriate lUustri, no. 8, fevrier, Bruxelles, 120-1 
et figg, ; Residtats de fouilles en Egypte, dans Beau.v-Arts, 4" annee, no. 20, 307 ; B. van de M'alle, .live 
les foudleurs en Egypte, dan.s la Revue de Saint-Louis, Bruxelles, 26® annee, 173-st. 

Signalons tout particulik'enient un excellent article de G. Steindohef, Der Acgyptische A usgrahung- 
winter 1925- 26, dans la Deutsche Literatuv.eitung, X.F., 3®'' Jahrg., Heft 39, 1885-1904. 

G. D-VBESsy, Les Rerherches arche'ologiques en Egypte, dans I.a Science rnodernc, Paris. 3® annee, no. 3, 
141-9, no. 6, 297-310, no. 10, 496-506, a resume d’une nianihre au.ssi vivante qu’utile la longue experience 
quhl possede des fouilles et de I'archeologie egyptiennes. D’apres Ancient Egypt, 127, G. Howardy, Fra 
Furaos Lund, Copenhague, donne une bonne idee d'ensemble de I’liistoire des fouilles en Egyjite. 

Ahuslr el-MeleL A. Scharff, Die archaeologische Ergebnisse des coryeschichtlichen GraherfeJdes von 
.\hufir el-MeleL Xaeh d. Aufzeichn. Georg Mailers hearb., Leipzig (49. wis.senschaftliche Verutieutlichung 
der deut.schen Orient-Gesellschaft), nous donne enfin le rapport sur les fouilles executees par G. Moller en 
1905-6 dan.s le cimetifere prGii.storique d’Abu.slr el-Melek. Acute de riuventairo inethodi((ue do touto.s 
le.s tombes, les lecteurs trouveront avec plaisir, aux pp. 71-83, un expo.se clair et prcel^ des idees de 
I’editeur sur le developpement des civilisations primitives en Egypte. 

Ahydos. !Sur les fouilles de r“Osireion,” voir H. Frankfort, Preliniin.ary Report of the E.rpedition to 
.ihydos 192.5-1026, in the Journal, xii, 157-65; Ausgra.hu ngen in Ahydos, in Archiv fur Urieutforsehung, 
III, 89 ; A’otes and AQws, in Ancient Egypt, 1926, 32. 

Delta. A. Sch.vrff, Ein fruhgeschichtlicher Fund aus deni Delta, dans V0.I..Z., xxix, 719-23, ra.s- 
senible quelques documents archcologiques sur la civilisation archaique du Delta i\ propos do quelques 
pieces decouvertes an sud-oue.st d’.klexandrie a Kom-el-Kanatir et que I’auteur classe au debut de la I®'® 
dynastie. 

Edfu. Un compte-rendu des fouilles de H. Henne a Tell Edfu est public par A. Calderini dans 
Aegyptus, vil, 329. 

Gizah. La tombe de la mere de Khcops est I’objet de plu.sieurs notices sommaire.s ; Ausgrahungen 
(Gtzah) dans Archiv fur Orientforschung, III, 134 et 201 ; Decourerte d/une nouvelle touihe de Pharaon dans 
Beau.r- Arts, iv, no. 5, 66. 

Les fouilles de la necropole sont annoneees dans Die erstc deutsche Ausgra.hirng in Aegyptea nach dem 
Kriege auf den grossen Pyramiden von Gizeh, dans les Xeve Jahrhucher furWissenschaft und Juqendhilduna 
II, 120. ‘ 


L’ouvrage de Glarence S. Fisher, The Minor Cemetery, est analyse par 8. A. B. Mercer in Journ 
Soc. Oriental Research, x, 10.3-4. 

Salcl-arah. C'est avec sati.sfaction qu’on pent enregistrer la publication importante de Cecil M. Firth 
and Battiscombe Gunn, E.vcarations at Saqqara. Teti pyramid cemeteries, Le Caire, 2 vols. Le degaue- 
ment de la necropole au nord de la pyramide de Teti est un des travaux les plus romarquables "de 
I’archeologie egyptienne dans les derniferes anuees. La moisson de fails archeologiqnes et de textes est 
considerable. Lii collaboration du fouilleur et de I’epigraphiste a donne les fruits les plus precieux. 

Sur le.s fouilles ii la pywmide a degrds voir C. M. Firth, The worlds oldest buildings: Sea- discoveries 
at Sakkara, m The Illustrated lAaidon Xeivs, vol. 168, 30 Jan., no. 4528, p. 179; Le compte-rendu du 



161 


BIBLIOGRAPHY ( 1926 ) : ANCIENT EGYPT 

Rapport de 1924-5, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 55. Voir fiu.ssi L. Borchardt, An^irahn ngen i-cni Sorpytca, 
dans Archaeologischcr Anzeiger. Beihlott zurn Johchiich des d. archaeolog. Institute, 455. 

Lgs rGcherclies de O. Jeqcier sont decrites dans le licippoct pretiiixtihiii'C nw tes fox/itte.^ e.ceciitee^ en 
1935-t9-^ti dans la panie raeridioiiale de la neeropole mcmphite, dans Ann. Sercice, xxvi, 44-62. Elies out 
porte en ordre principal sur le Mastaliat el-Fai‘un dont I'attribution a Shepse.skaf paiait certainc, et sur 
la pyramide de la I’ome Oiidjebten, femnie de Pepi II, dont la chamln'o entierenient dctruite conteiiait 
des“Textes des Pyi'amides. ’ Jeijcier a decouvert egalenient de curieuses “ Steles inaisons.'' Plu.sieurs 
tombeaux de particuliers ont ete deeouvcrts, dont I’lin a fourni au llusee du Caire une curieuse sene de 
raodeles de victiiailles en pierre. Entin Jeqcier a identitie I’emplacement du Portjque inferieur du temple 
de Pepi II. 

Les fouilles de la campagne precedente sont citees dans Amdent Egypt, 1926, 54 et 57. 

Thebes. Sur le temple nouveau db4.menophis IV a Karnak, voir Archie tnr Orientfor.irhnag, III, 135. 

Les detads ii iuserer dans la carte de la neeropole tbebaine, d’apres les dounees de B. Bruyere et 
N. DE Lr. D.avies {.[mi. Sere., 1925j sont resumes dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 56 et 57. 

Les travaux de I'lnstitut frangais d'archeologie sont decrits par F. Bissox de la Roque, Rapport sue 
les fouilles de MAianioud (1925 ), Le Caire (Rapports preliiuiuaires, iii, pn-' partie) et par Berx'ard 
Brdyere, Rapport sur les fouilles de JJeir el-Aledineh (1924-5), Le Caire. (Rapports prelimiuaires, in, 
3« partie.) 

Les fouilles de M. Mond pres du toiabeau de Ramose sont citees dans Aaeient Egypt, 1926, 120 
(M. A. Murray) et dans Archie far Oneutforsehung, ili, 135. 

L’etude d’A. Moret sur Maspero et les fouilles dans la ealle'e des Rois est citee dans Ancient Egypt, 
1926, 58 ; le rapport d'E. Schi.ap.arelli, sur les fouilles de la vallee des Reines est analyse longuement 
par E. Xaville, dans le Journal des Savants, 157-67. 

Tehneh. Une fouille rapide a permis de deblayer quatre toinbes. Bans Tune d’elles (le no. 3) le puits 
a donne la sepulture d’un vizir nouveau Ankh-Ounnotir a clas.scr entre la et la XXIII® dynastie : 
Hakim Effesdi Abou Seif, Rapport sur les fouilles faites d Tehneh en janrier et feerier dans les 
Ann. Serv., xxvi, 32-8; P. Lacau, A^ote sur la toaibe no. 3 de Tehneh, ibid., .38-41. 

Desert oriented. Voir dans ce Journal, xii, 166-7 une A~ote on the ruins of Hitdn.-Shenshef near 
Berenice par G. V\. Murray. Epoque indeterminee, d'apres la potene plutot arabe que romaine. 

Ahubie. Les fouilles de H. Junker a Ermenue out ete lobjet d un article par Fk. v. Bissix'g, dans le 
Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 46. Jlir., no. 44, 1199-1206. 

F. Ll. Griffith continue la publication de ses fouilles en Xubie- O.rford E.cca.rations in A'ahia, in 
Liverpool Annals, xiii, 17-37 (pp. 36-7, Errata in previous volumes), 49-93. Compte-rendus par A. Wie- 
demann, O.L.Z., XXIX, 35-6 (vol. XI), et Ancient Egypt, 1926, 120 (vol. xiii, 1-2). 

Paul Tresson, Le Journal de Voyage du cornte Louis de Sai nt-Ferriul et la decoucerte de la stile de 
Kouban, dans le Bulletin de V Lnstitut francais d'archeologie orientale, xxvii, 29-37, apporte une luipurtante 
contribution a Phistoire des fouilles de Xubie. 

Soudan. G. O. B'hitehead et F. Addison, Meroitic Remains, Sudan A'otes and Records, ix, 51-8 ; 
G. 0. tVniTEHEAD, A\igua and ilasaicwurat, ibid., 59-67. 

S. A. B. Mercer, The Recovery of forgotten Empires, est recensti par John A. Maynard, Jouni. Soc. 
Onental Research, x, 214; A. Gust.yvs, Theolog. Literat.-Zeitung, Li, 505; Ancient Egypt, 1926, 127. 

Publication de Textes. 

ia) From sites in Egypt. 

B. Bruyere et Ch. Kuentz sous le titre Tornbes thebaiaes. La Xecropole dc Deir cl-Ale'dinck. La, 
tombe de NaL-ht-AIia et la tombe de Ari-Nefer, i, fasc. 1, Le Caire {ilenioires de I'lnst. franc., lit), ont 
repris Peditiou longteuips interrompue des toinbes de la neeropole tbebaine commencee par la ilission 
frangaise du Caire, sous I’iinpulsion de Maspero. Esperons que les fascicules .suivront rapidemeut. 

Les premiers resultats epigraphiques des fouilles de Medamtid sont publics par Etienne Briotox', 
Rapport sur les fondles de Medamoud {1925). Les inscriptioiu. Le Caire. (Inst, fraiie. Rapports preliuii- 
naires, lli, 2' partie.; 

Compte-reudas des publications de C. Kuentz et G. Lefebvre, sur la version complete et abregee de 
la Stele du mariage do Raineses II, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 54 et 56; ibid., 58, laniionce de la nouvelle 
edition du Poeme de Pentaour" preparee par Kuentz; i6bi., 30-1 (L. B. Ellis) le compte-rendu de 
Pedition p.ar A. H. Gardiner de I’Autobiography of Rekhmere. 

Jouru. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


21 



162 


JEAN CAPART 


Battiscombe Gunn pablie une sM’ie d’inscriptions de Sakkarah : Imcriptioiist from the Step Pi/r<tmid 
site. I. An inscribed statue of King Zoser Asms Ann. Serr., xxvi, 177-196, 1 pi. ; II. An architect's diagram of 
the third dynasty, ibid., 197-202 ; The inscribed sarcophagi in the Serapeura, ibid., 82-91 ; Tiro misunder- 
stood Serapevm Inscriptions, ibid., 92-4. 

(6) From Museums. 

Le texte de Horbeit edite par E. Naville {Ann. Serv., x), btudie par le nieine dans la tierue de lEgypte 
ancienne, i, e.st cite dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 59, et dans les Cornpte-rendus de V Academic, 1926, 29. 

Gr. Loukianoff publie quelques Xouveaux Fragments de la stele de Pianhhi dans Ancient Egypt, 
1926, 86-9. 

Ldnscription de la Statue du Caire no. 42190, ine.xactement copiee par G. Legrain, e.st reproduite par 
G. Lefebvee, Herihor, rizir, dan.s les Ann. Sen'., 63-8, qui en tire d'interessante.s deduotiou.s historiquo.-, 
.sur Fextinction du pouvoir des Raniessides an benefice du grand pretre d’Amen. 

Quelque.s brefs compte-rendus dans Ancient Egypt, 1926: 54, B. BrutrRE, jSVt-A.'.’ troarees a Deir el- 
Medineh ; 55, G. Lepebvre, Le Grand Pretre d’Arnen Harrnakhis ■, 56, G. A. W.tiN Wright, Three Stelce from 
Naq ed Deir ; 57, B. Gunn, A sixth dynasty letter from Saqqura . ; 5.s, H. G.ruiHiEi:, Fn Groupe ptoleinaique 
d' Heliopolis. 

La .seule jiublication tre.s iruportantc est celle de Kurt .Sethe, Die Achtnng feindhcher Fursten, Volker 
und Binge avf altdgypUschen Tongefassscherben des mittleren Reiches. Berlin. (Abhaiidl. d. prou.s.s. Akad. 
d. ‘llls.s, 1926, Phil.-Hist. Klas.se, no. 5.) Les formules magi(|ue.s d’o.xecration eontre les enneiuis de 
FEgypte et de la famille royale renfcrment des documents d une valour exeeptionnelle, surtout pour le.s 
connai.ssances geographique.s de.s Egyptiens au debut du nKiyeu-eMi)ire. La reconstitution du te.xte an 
nioyeii des nonibreu.x fragments iieut etro citi‘e comine un \ eritable triomphe pour le savant auteur. 


Histoire, 

The Cambridge Ancient History a ete I’objet de nombreux compte-rendu.s. T. i : Christian, JViener 
Zeitsch. f. Kunde der Morgenl., xxxil, 309-12 ; T. I et ll : Ernst L. Weipner, Archiv fier Orientforsc/nmg, 
III, 19: Kahrstedt, Litteris, iii, 28-49; P. Schnabel, Zeitsch. d. devt. Morgenland. Gesellsch., v, 31.3-9; 
Fr. Cumont, Revue beige de philologie et cVhistoire, v, 175-81 ; T. ii : F. Munzer, O.L.Z., x.xix, 109-12 ; 
T. i-ni: IV. Otto, Literariseke M'ochenschrift, no. 35, col. 1016; Dhoriie, Rerue biblique, xxxv, 300-11; 
T. Ill : H. T. Robinson, Expositor, ix, 462-4. 

L’ouvrage de G. FougIires, G. C'onten.vu, R. Grolusset, P. Jougcet et J. Lesquier, Les Premieres 
Cicilisations, Paris, seniblera peu satisfaLsant aux egyptologue.s. Les bibliographies ne sent pas an 
courant, trop de noin.s propres sont deforme.s : Kagenioui, Xeimf'erra, Lybiens.... Quelques compte-rendus: 
M. Petit, Larousse mensuel, octobre, 240-1 ; G. Radet, Revue des etudes nuciennes, 373-4; A. Calderini, 
Aegyptiis, vil, 323-5 ; Bulletin bibliographique et pedagogique dn Miisee beige, xxx, 274 et s. 

Dans I’ouvrage de N. Jorga, Essai de synthese de V histoire de I’humanite, i, Histoire ancienne, Paris, x, 
390 IF., les pp. 22-48 sont consacrees a I’Egypte. 

E. .1. Klauber et C. F. Lehmann-Hacpt, Geschichte des alten Orients, est analy.se par G. R. Driver, 
Archiv fur Orientforschung, iii, 80-1, et Samuel A. B. Mercer, Journ. Soc. Oriental Research, x, 300-1. 
M. Rostovtzeff, a History of the Ancient kVorld, translated from the Russian by' J. D, Duff. The Ancient 
Orient est recense dans The Periodical, Dec., xi, no. 137, 211-15. 

B. Meisner, O.L.Z., xxix, 398-400 loue justement le livre de Walter Otto, Kulturgeschichte des 
Altertums, 1925. 

G. Sergi, Le prime et le piu ontiche civiltd. I creatori, Torino, consacre les pages 110-36 a FEgy'pte. 

.1. H. Breasted, The Conquest of Civilization, New Fork et Londres, est une nouvelle edition remise 
au point de V Ancient Times du meme auteur. 

Jean Capart, Elsolement de FEgypte, dans A tracers le mmide, Bruxelles, 14^ annee, mars, 48-5.3, est 
un article de vulgarisation. Un compte-rendu de G. Jeqdier, Histoire de la civilisation egy ptienne, par le 
meme auteur, a paru dans la Revue bibliographique, Bruxelle.s, vii, 60. 

Les idees d’ELLlOT Smith sur I’origine egyptienne de la civilisation ont ete Fobjet de plusieurs articles: 
G. Ijibelloni, Dos America nisinos, Buenos Aires, 1926; M. Mauss, L’Ecole d' Elliot Smith, dans V Annee 
Sociologique Paris, 1926; D. vVaRNOTTe, Critique de la theorie de VEgypte, mire des peuples, 

dans la Revue de Vlnstitut de Sociologie, Bruxelles, 308-11 ; un article sur W. J, Perry, The Children of 
the Sun, dans Man, xxvi, 227-8. 



163 


BIBLIOGKAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT 


Je iiu connais pas T. G. Allen, F<itU and Fancies in Egyptian History, dans xinierie. Journ. of Semitic 
Lang., XLII, 213 et s. 

J. H. Breasted, Histoire de I’Egypte depuis les temps les plus recules jusqifd la conquite persane, 
Bruxelles, en 2 volumes, est la traduction de I'ouvrage classique public dcjii en anglais et en allemand. 
(Prefcioe par J. Capart.) 

Le bel ouvrage de Mrs. A'. Brunton, Kings and queens o f ancient Egypt, a etc I’objet d’articles elogieux 
dans The Connoisseur, Lxxv, no. 290, 178 et The Illustrated London Sens, 9 Jan., 52-3. 

A. Moret et G. Davy, Bes Clans au.c Empires, a paru en edition anglaise; From Tribe to Empire. 
Snci(d organisation among primitives and in the ancient East. Translated by V. G. Childe. Londres. 
Cornpte-rendus de I'cdition francaise par A. Abbrl'zzesE, dans Soientia, xx, .ser. ii, 3U3, et A. Wiedemann, 
dans .irchic fnr l)rientforschv ng. III, 70-80. 

• Le nouvel ouvrage d'A. Moret, Le Sit et la ririlisation e'gyptienne, Paris, a rencontre un accueil tres 
favorable: Ancient Egypt, PJ2fJ, 90; H. Bonnet, Liter. Zeitschr., col. 1740 ; Besnier, Revue des questions 
historiques, Liv, no. 4; S. R(ElN.vCHj, Revue arche'ologique, xxiv, 291; D. M'arnotte, Revue de Vlnstitut 
de Sociologie, Bi'u.xelle.s, 344-6. 

B. PoERTNEH, tieschiehte Aegyptens in Cha ralcterhildern. Munich, est uu petit livre qui sans doute 
(lonnera a de nombreux lecteurs le gout des etudes ligyptologicpies. iGomptc-reudu par E. Zippert, 
IJterarische WocheHsehn ft, XLIV, col. 1303.) La ineilleure mtroductioii populaire a ces etudes est sans doute 
le livre de F. Schub.vrt, I'on der FUiyelsonne zum Ilalhniond. Aegyptens t.leschlehte his auf die Oegen.wart, 
Leipzig. 

Pen do compte-reiidus out etc donnes d’A. M’eigall, .4 History of the I'haraohs, l : T. G. 
Allen, Anier. Journ. of Semitic Lang., xlii, 216; K. V. D. Magoffin, Amer. Journ. of ArduMol., xxx, 
191-4. 


Eduard Meyer, Die idtere Chronologie... est I'objet de recensions dc : Arnold Gustavs, Berliner 
Philologische Wochensehrift, xlvi, 1240; G. F. Lehmann-Hauft, A7ib, xxi (X.S. iii), 103-."); J. Lewy, 
Deutsche Literaturzeitv ng, N.F. ill, 567 et s. ; B. Meisner, Hist. Zeitschrift, cxxxiv, 87 et .s. 

Kayjiond Weill, Bases, metkodes et re'sidtats de la chronologie egyptiemie, Paris, sera hi aveo utilite 
par tons coux qui se prcoccupeiit do ce grave probleme historique. L’auteur ne leur apportera mal- 
heureusernent pas les elements indispensables pour resoudre definitivement la question. 

Je ne sais ce que contient : P. J. Eaiios {Die Wahrheit uher die agyptisehen Dynastieen) dans la Revista 
Espaiwla de Estudios Biblicos, i, Malaga, pp. 22-6 et 28-37 ; suite et fin au no. 10. 

Nous devons a AV. Sfiegelberg, Die Glauhvmrdigkeit ron Herodots Bericht uher Aegypten im Lichte 
der agyptisehen Benhnaler, Heidelberg, unc brillaute enquete sur la veracitc d’Herodote: le voyageur 
grec a bieii observe au cours de son voyage et on aurait tort de lui reprocher de ne pas avoir pu verifier 
tons le.s renseignements qu’il a recueillis. < 'ompte-rendus par G. Ruder, Gnomon, ii, 749-51 ; Fr. Geyer 
Literarische ^Xochenschrift, 1334; A. Calderini, Aegyptus, vii, 337 ; M. Hombert, Revue beige de philologie 
et d'histoire, V, 1052-4. Je u’ai pas vu H. Treidlek, Herodot : Reisen und Forschungen in Afrika 
Leipzig. 


A. Moret, Une Revolution sociale en Egypte vers Van .Ann), dan.s la Revue dc Davis, 15 avril, 869-93 
litudie la periode revolutionuaire qui mit fin a I’aucien empire: “Au despotismo sacre va succeder un 
socialisme d’Etat.” (Voir la Revue historique, juillet — aoftt, 299.) 

R. Eisler, La Thalassocratie des Hyksos, dan.s le Journal Asiatique, 192, n’est que rannonce d’une 
conference donnee sur ce sujet k Paris. 

S. A. B. Mercer, in Journ. Soc. Oriental Research, x, 301, auiionce la reeMition de G. Maspkro The 

Struggle of the Sations (1925). ’ 

G. tsTEiNDORFF a outiferemeiit refondu et auginentc son excellent livre Die Blatezeit des Dharaunen- 
reiches. Recensions par T. Eric Peet, Lirerpool Annals, xiii, 98 ; H. Lamer, Hum. Gyrnn., 37 vi 261 • 
S. A. B. Mercer, Journ. Soc. Oriental Research, x, 306 ; Revue a.rcheologigue, xxiv 97—8 

J BAN Capart, The Glory of a great Pa.st, in collaboration with Marcelle M^erbrouck, a paru 

a Londres et a New York. Quelques cumpte-rendus de I’editiou francaise (192-3) : S de Ricci Revue 
critique d’histoire et de litterature, 21-2; C. R. AADlliams, Amer. Journ. Arch., xxx, 194-5- P Montet 
Revue beige de philologie et d’histoire, v, 602-4; id., Revue des Etudes anciennes, xxvin, 67-8 - A b' 
Mercer, Soc. Oriental Research, x, 214-15; A. Scharff, O.L.Z., .xxix, 6.33; Ch. Borecx Journal 

des Savants, jiullet, 325-7 ; R. Anthes, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1549-51 ; Archioio generale di neu I ' 
psichiatra e psicoanalm, vii, no. 3; G. S^arton), Zsis, juillet, " 


21—2 



164 


JEAN CAPAET 


James Baikie, The Ainania Age. A Study of the crisis of the aacieat world, Londres, a doune la 
meilleure vue d’eusemble de Tepoque d'Amenophis IV. Conipte-rendii elogieux dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 
124-0. 

E. Forrer, Die astronornische Festlegung des Soppihdjomas, Morsilis und Amenophis IV, dans For- 
schangen, II, 1-37, utilise les documents hittites pour preciser le probleme cbronologique. Les archives 
hittites permettent egalement a A. H. Sayce, \yhat happened after the death of Tuf Ankhauion [Journal, 
ill, 168-70;, d'cclaircir le 2 ->robleme des troubles qui suivirent la precuce disi)arition de Toutankhamen. 

A. Moret, La Cmnpagne de Seti F' ati nord du Carmel, est analyse dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 59. 

T. Eric Feet, The Supposed Iterolution of the high-priest Amenhotpe under Rarnesses IX [Journal, ill, 
254-9), souleve une serie de jiroblemes ot niontre combien nous ignorons les base.s meme de I’liistoire des 
derniers Eamessides. 

M. A. ibcHHAY), Ancient Egypt, 1926, 122-3, analyse le memoire de V. Struve sur le grand Papyrus 
Harris .Aegyptus, vii;. 

T. Eric Peet, Journal, xii, 322-4, fait l uloge du livre de J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus (1925). 

H.iROLD il. IVlEiEH, The Historical Character of the Exodus, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 104-15, discutc 
les theories de Gardiner sur I'exode. 

G. F. H., Tachos, King of Egypt, dans The British Museum Quarterly, no. 1, 24-5, reproduit une 
monnaie unique du roi Tachos, decouverte a iMemj)lns 

Signalons Ithude de E. .Mariox Smith, Xaukratis, a, chapter in the History of the HellenUation of 
Egypt, dans le Journ. Soc. Oriental Research, x, 119-207. 

(luelques ouvrages sur I’histoirc d’Eg\q)te a I’cqioquo grcco-roinamc luais quo les egyptologues con- 
sulteront avec int<'ret : V. Ehre.xberg, Alexander and Aegypien (Beiheft zuni Alten Orient, 7), Leipzig. 
(Recensions: J.H.S.. 282-3; F. Jacoby, Onomon, 459-63; Ernst Meyer, Deutsche Literaturzeitvng 
(X.F. Ill;, 1799;; G. Hadet, Notes sur Vhistoire cP Alexandre, vi. Le pelerinage av sanetuaire d’ Ammon, 
dans la Revue des Etudes anciemies, .i.wiii, 213-40; F. Jouguet, L’Lnperialisnie rnacedonien et Phelleni- 
sution. de VOrient, Paris. Compte-rendu de B. A. van Gkooningen, Hellenisme op creemden hodein, par 
M. Homuert, Rievae beige de philologie et dhistoire, 217 ; B. A. van Gkooningen, L’Egypte et VEmpire, 
dans Aegyptus, vii, 189-202, est iJutOt, comme I'indique le .sous-titre, une Etude de droit public romarn. 

A. Kammerer, Essai sur Vhistoire antique de V Abyssinie. “Le royaume d’Aksum et ses voisiius 
d’ Arable et de Mdroe," Paris, 198 pp. et 45 pL, consacre un chapitre, le IX, des pages 67-83, aux rapports 
des Abvssins avec Meroe. 

Remarques sur I'etude de H. Gauthier, Le roi Zadfre, dans Ancient Egypt, 56 ; ce serait un co-regent 
de Khtqjhren. 

V. SiRUtVE, Zv.„i Namen des Konigs dans la Zeitschr. f ag. Spr., Liii, 6.5-6, explique 

le num comme devant se vocaliser Talot-Amuu>Talt-Amun ce qui s’aecorderAit avec la transerlTition 
cuiieiforme : Tastamani, Taltauiani. ^ 

B. Gunn, Notes on tvo Egyptian Kings, dans le Journal, iii, 250-3, cherche eu premier lieu ii con- 
firmer la tradition egyptienne du c.iraet^ro aiiii.ible et bieuveillaut dn roi Snct'roii; il e.xplique ensuite les 
raisons qui I'empccheiit d'admettre i)our le iiom de Toutankhamen la traduction liabituello “Livin'’- 
Image of Amun.” II prefere “ The Life of Amnn is Plea.sing.” 

Ancient Egypt, 60, donne I'analyse du memoire d’E. Chassinat, La Princesse Nouherntekh. 


Geographie. 

Je irai pas vu Fr. Hommel, Ethnologie und Geographie des alten Orients, P jiart. 

Henri Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms geogra plaques coatemis dans les textes hie'roglyphiques iii 
poursuit regulierement la publication de son utile repertoire. Le volume iii comprend les lettres ^ a <=> 

Aux jjp. 143-55, nombreuses additions et corrections aux trois premiers tomes. Compte-rendu du tome 
jiar P. iMoNTET daiis la Rerue des Etudes anciennes, ixviii, 58-9. ^ ^ 

Alexes ilAULON, Za Geographie de VE.rode. Congres international de Geographie, Le Caire avr'l 
1925, V, 84-9. .s’appuyant .sur les eUides rcceiites de Clddat et de Gardiner cherche h montrer que’“loin 
redire. la cconranhie de Ihsthine s'harrnonise n^ii-Palteniont ^ 


do le contredire, la geographie de I’isthrne s’harinonise iiarfaitemeut avec le texte sacrc 

G. Dahessy, Rccherches geogra phiqnes, dans les Ann. Serr., xxvi, 246-72 av 
nombreuse de j)oint.s de detail sur la geographie dn nord du Delta. 

H. G. L[yoxs], The Geographical Journal, 67, no. 3, analyse Omar Toussocn, Memoire 


du. Nil. 


ec 1 carte, lilucide une serie 
sur Vhistoire 



BIBLIOGEAPHY ( 1926 ): ANCIENT EGYPT 165 

Je no connais pas le» articles suivauts rulatilN au Fayyum et aux Oasis libyennes : G. AV. Graham, The 
f uyum lakes, dans Mature, 25 dec., 911-12; A. E. R. Boak, Irriyatioa and pop^datioa in the Fn/juni, the 
Garden of Egypt, in Geographical Review, xvi, :l53-64 ; L. AV. Collet, L Oasis de Khurga dans I’Oasis 
lihyque, dans Annales de Ge'ographie, uov., 527-34; E. Ol'BUC, Les Oasis perdnes, dans La Geugraphie, 
sept. — oct., 220-2 ; AA’. F. Hume, The lost Oases by A. J/. llassanein Bey, Londres, 1925, dans le Bull, de 
la Soc. roy. de geographie d’Egypte, xiv, 31-4 ; AV. J. Hardixg King, Mysteries of the Libyan desert (1925). 
Comjjte-rendu dans Sudu/i Sates and Records, ix, 143-4; M. Tilho, Du- Sil aii.v cnnp’ns dn Tibesti par le 
centre du desert Ubyiae, dans les Coinpte-rend'is de I’Acarl. Jes Scicnees, Paris, decenibre. 

Cituns encore vine scrip de travaux u’intere.s.sant I’egyptoiogue cpie dame luaniere indirecte : H.Heheraix, 
Les Oeographes franeais dans le Levant, dans Rev. uiternat. de i’ Enseignenient, 116-23 et 160-71 ; A'ivielle, 
Rote sur une carte rnanuscrite du voyage de Ibiul Lucas a.u.v cataractes dv Sil dessiuee par Jean. Baptiste 
Solin (1703-4), dans Congr'es international de Geograpjhie, Le Ctiire, 1925, v, 67-75, avec 2 pi. ; in.. Sole 
sur la carte rnanuscrite des deserts de la Basse- The'buide par le R. B. Ricard, li lil, ibid., 76-8; S. Hetole, 
L'ltiiierariuin del P. Rernedio Prvtcky, riaggiatore e inissioiuirio francescano {Alto Egitto) ed A suo viaggio 
in Ahissinia, .11 febbraio lid 2 — 22 aprile liSl, ibid., 157-95. 

Citons ici dcjii E Opera degli Italiani per la conoscenza dell' Egitto e per il suo risoryimento civile ed 
econoniico, .scritti di v.u'i aiitori, raccolti e coordinati a cura di Kobertu Almegia. Parte prana. Rome. 
Cumpte-rendu par A. Calderixi, Aegyptas, vn, 321-2. 

Quelques voyages en Egypte piiblies eu 1926: H. BethgE, Aeyyptisehc Reese. Eia Tagehui.h, Berlin; 
Ludwig Diehl, Sphinx. Erlehnisse, Studien und Gndanken a.us tneincin Anfenthalt ini La.n.d dnr Wunder, 
Hamburg; AC d. Eekexbeemi, diet eeau-iye Pharaonetda ml, ill, iv, dans Opigang, 4' aiiuee, 07-113, 145, 
150-7, 196-210, 289-303 ; John Fh.ienkel, Eva SUen til Jordan, Copenhague, 170 pp. et figg.; J. Heix, 
Auf biblisehen Pfaden im Reich des Pharao. Kidtarbilder a.ns dem alten Aegypten-. J. d Ivkay, Coup died 
sur V Egypte pittoresque, dans Sciences et Voyages, 21 Janvier: Alfred Kaufmanx, Eiciyes Stronda ml. 
Land und Mensch in Aegypten, Stuttgart; J. A. Sfexdek, The ehangtng East. Travels in Turkey, Egypt 
and India. A''oir eu outre Hexry Bordeaux, Voyageurs JOrb'nl, Paris, 2 vol. 

Aleiitioimons deux guides : EusTace Reyx’oLDs-Hall, Cairo of to-day. A practical guide to C<tiro 
and the Sile; The Valley of the Sde {in 2ii-i:i zi ) iiublished by the Tourist Development Association of 
Egypt. 

Citons enfiu le travail de Geo. Sobhy, The transliteration of the ancient Egyptian names of toivns, 
villages, etc. into Arabic, dans Congris inter natiomd de GVoy rapine, Le Cairo, 1925, v, 115-25. 

Foreigx' Relaiiox’s. 

As'ic. F. NOtscher, Kanaan cor der isra.elitisehen Einxeanderumj, huuptsarUlich caeh den ausser- 
biblischen Quellen, dans Theoloyie und Glaube, xvui, 535-49, etudie les rapports politiques du pays de 
Canaan avec la Babylonie et PEgypte. 

Le P. Dhoriie, dans le THctionnaire de la Bible. Supplement, fasc. 1, 207-20, resume ce que nous out 
appris les Lettres d’ El-Arniana. 

S. F. Albright, Ainun-hatpe, governor of Palestine, dans la Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., xii, 63-4, nous 
montre Aman-hatpe, resident a Gaza, donuant ses ordres au prince de Taanach, peut-etro sous le rpaue 
de Thutmes lA^. 

Harold AI. AA^iex’eh, dans Ancient Egypt, 51-3 et 70-2, etudie The Relations of Egypt to Israel and 
Judah in the age of Isaiah. 

Le livre de G. Coxtexau, La Civilisation phenicieiiiie, Paris, revele eu plusieurs eudroits une connais- 
sance incomplete des donnees de Pegyptologie. (Compte-rendu dc L. Delapokte, Rev. de I Hist, des Relig., 
93, 144-6.) 

On lira avec interet les remarques de G. Roder, Aegyptologische Beohachtungen in Paldstina und 
Syrien, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 739-44. A^'oir aus.si J. Garstasg, Problems in the archaeology of Palestine, 
dans Journ. Manchester Eg. aarl Oriented Soc., xii, 16. 

Beisun. Alax’ Rowe, The Temples of Dagon and Ashtoreth at Beth-Shau, dans The Museum Journ., 
XVII, 294-304; Neu: light on Palestine over .JIJOU years ago: relics of Egyptian, Minoun and Hittite in.- 
fluences, dans The Illustrated London News, 30 oct., vol. 169, no. 4567, 828-9, donne un aperfu de ses 
importantes decouvertes de temples egyptieiis des XVIII^ et XIX® dynasties. Une serie d'articlea leur 
soiit con.sacrees : Ausgrahiingen in Bison, dans Archie fur Orientforschuug, III, 89; The Antirquanan 
{Quarterly, 240-1 ; Les Fouillcs americaines Je Beisan en I'JJj, dans Syria, 284; Les Fouilles de Beisan en 



166 


JEAN CAP ART 


103o, daiis k Revue archeologique, xxiv, 80; L. Abensour, Des Richemes u reheologiqv.es sont enfouies 
e/i Ryrie, dans Sciences et Voyages, 4 novembre, avec 7 ill.; S. A. C\ook), The American Excavations at 
Deisan, dans Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 26-30 et 91. 

Byhlos. Les fouilles de Byblos continueiit a donner des re.sultats important.s: A. Boi.ssIEK, La Sainte 
Byhlos, Lausanne ; R. Ddssaud, Le Sanctuaire pthenicien de Byhlos d'apr'es Benjamin <lc Tudele, dans Syria, 
VII, 247-.‘)6 ; Amer. Journ. of Arch., xxx, 342, resume de H. GRE.•^sMASX, Byhlos (1925); P. Moxtet, Les 
Conferences du Louvre. Byhlos, Aevas, L’Art Viraut, 15 avril, 300-4: Moraxd-Verel, Recherches archeo- 
logiques dans le Liban. L’antiqiie cite de Byhlos, dans L’ Amour de I Art, juin, 219-20; Maurice Fillet, 
Temple de Byhlos (Fouilles de 1926), dans les Comptes Rendus de V Acad, des Iiiscr., 287 ; Y(ixcext), La 
Quatri'enie Canipagne de fouilles a Byhlos, dans Rente hiblique, 46.')-6. 

W. F. Albrioht, The Date of the Foundation of the early Egyptian TempAe of Byhlos, dans la Zeitschr. 

f. iig. Spr., LXll, 62-3, donne de bonnes raisons de croire que le Roi Meu-kaou de Byblos est Men- 

kaou-Hor de la V'^ dyuastie et non Mycerinus de la IV“; R. Duss.acd, Dedicace d line statue d'Osorkon 1"' 
par Elibdal, roi de Byblos, est analyse dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 29 avee fig. (voir aus.si Tarticle suivant) ; 
1\'. SpiEGELBERG, Zur Da.tierung der Ahira ni-Inschrift von Byhlos, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 735-7, emet des 
duutes SL-rieux sur la date du xiii*^ siecle av. J. C. de la fameuse inscription d’Aliiram : e’est aux 6pi- 
graiihistes de decider, les fragment.s de canopes au nom de Ramses II no peuvent servir a la determination 
pi'cci.se dans uue n^oropole bouleversee. 

Saida. Maurice Duxand, A’ote sur quelques ohjets prorenant de Saida, dans Syria, vii, 123-7, 
publie des vases egyptiens en bronze faisant “ probablement partie de I’oSrande funeraire d’Amasis eu 
faveur d'un personnage important, peut-etre un roi” de Sidon, et des fragments do steles de style 
composite. 

Sina'i. Les fameuses inscriptions du Sinai continuent a fairc I’objet do vifs debats ; H. Grimme, Die 
Ixisang des Sinaischrift-prohlems. Die altthamudische Schrift, Miinster i. AY., compte-rendu par M. Gixs- 
BURGER, dans la Rev. de V Hist, des Relig., 94, 202-4 ; N.athaxiel Reich, Sinai Inscriptions and their 
decipherment, reprinted from United Synagogue Recorder, January, 4 pp. ; Kurt Sethe, Der Ursprung des 
Alphabets. Die neuentdeckte Sinaischrift, Berlin, 88-161, 437-75, est la reimpression du travail fonda- 
mental public en 1916-17. (Compte-rendu dans Literarische Wochenschrift, col. 1203.) Les fantai.sies 
recentes sout jugees par Kurt Sethe, Die icissenschaftliche Bedeutung der Petric’sehen Sinaifunde und 
die nugehl ichen Aloseszeugnisse, dans Zeitschr. der deulschen Morgenldnd. GescUsch., K.F., v, 24- .54. 

Babyloaie et Assyrie. AY. AI. Flixder.s Petrie, Egypt and Mesopotamia, siguale Faiialugie entre 
certains vases egyptiens du moyen empire et la ceramique pre-sargonique d’LTr; il en profite pour discuter 
hrievemeut les travaux de Y. Christian [Anthropological Soc. of Vienna, lv). AA'. Struve, Em Aegypter- 
Schidegersohii des Sanherib, dans la Zeitschr. f. dg. Spr., LXil, 66, croit retrouver parmi les temoins d’un 
coutrat un Susauku, dgyptien, gendre du roi Sanherib. 

Crete. AI. Boule, Les Relations de la Crete minoenne avec VEgyptu et la Lihye, dans V Anthropologie, 
XXXVI, 182-3, et H. R. Hall, Compte-rendu de Xanthoudides, The Vaulted Tonih of Messard (1924), 
dans le Journal, xii, 141-2, soulignent I’importance des rapports de FEgypte avec la Crete. 

Hittites. K. Sethe, Meue Forschungen zu den Beziehungen zuischen Aegypten und dem Chattireiehe 
anf Grund ayyptischer Quellen, dans la Deutsche Literaturzeitung, X.F., 3 Jahr., 1873-80, apporte d’im- 
poitautes contributions uoiivelles a I’etude des rapports do I’Egypte avec le royauiue des Hittites 
parliculiereiuent sous le regne de Ramses II. 

Punt. E. Xaville, Le Pays de Fount et les Chainites, dans la Rev. archeol , xxili, 112-21, cliorche il 
demontrer que “la civilisation egyptienne est chamitique ; elle est due a d'anciens habitants du sud de 
I’Arabie qui, avant les temps historiques, .s’etablirent dans la vallce du Xil.” Compte-rendu par SAB 
AIerceh dans le Journ. Soc. Oriental Research, x, 217. L. B. Ellis, Ancient Eyi/pt, 1926, 31, analyse 
I’ctude de U. AVilckex, P aut-Fahrten in der Ptolemaerzeit. 

Carthage. Er.vncis AAL Kelsey, Excavations at Carthage, I'.lh.j, Londres (compte-rendu par L B 
Ellis dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 93), cherche a demontrer I’identite entre Xeith et Taiiit dont le symbole 
scrait la croix de vie sous sa forme archaique. 

Varia. S. R(einach), Egyple et Caucase, dans la Rev. archeol., xxiv, 269-70, resume les idees de 
Flinders Petrie sur la pos.sibilite de relations tres ancienne.s entre ee.s deux region.s (d’apres le Times 
du 11 aout). 

A. Zakharov, A fragment of a crown of Osiris from the south of Russia, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926 85 
publie uu fragment de bronze egyptien decouvert a i’embouchure du Hon. 



BIBLIOGKAPHY (1926) : ANCIENT EGYPT 


167 


Citons enfin Paul Pelliot, Les JneiV;?*' RappoHs entre VEgppte et V Extreme Oi-Rnt, dans le Congris 
Interaat. de Geographie, Le Caire, 1925, v, 21-2, et S. Schiffer, L'Amenipn- et VOneiit, dans Oriens, 
Paris, no. 1, 35-6. 

Philology. 

Aveo la publication du 2“ fa.scicule d’Ao. Ermax et Hehmaxx Gr.vpow, ]yortei-huch der aggpt'm-hen 
Sprache, Leipzig, se ternnne le premier volume de cette leuvre monunientale, coinprenant les mots de 

jusque Signalous les couiptc-rendus suivants dont la plujiart se rapportent seulement .m premier 
fascicule : AV. Spiegelberg, Zu de,- er.gen Lieier^ing des Wnrti'i'hin /ieg d'T ngyptigehru R/irur/n:, dans 1 O.L.Z., 
XXIX, 233-6; H. Kee.s, GJJ.A., 141-8; II. O. L.\xge, Dent.uhe Liternturzeitinig, X.F., ill, 2272; S. A, B. 
Merger, -/oiO'/i. Soc. (Jrieatul Ri-eenrcli, X, .304-5; A. MoRET, Reeiie i ntigtie d'hittoii'e et de litti'rature, 
xciii, 331-4; T. Eric Peet, Joitemd, xii, 319-20. 

S. A. B. Mercer, dans Juur/). Sue. Oriental Re-Search, x, 107, marque brieveiiient sa satisfaction d'avoir 
k sa disposition le Le.ei'jne hieroglypldqi'e de R. Lambert '1925;. 

AV. E. Albright, Tke -Wir Cunrifor/ii Voeahnlarg ot Eggptatn lle/r/.^, dans le Jonrnal^ xii, 186-90, 
soiiligne I’importance du document trouve a Tell el-Aiiiarn.i pour I'litude de la plionetique egyptieniie. 

Je n'ai pas vu T. G. Allen, Ah Egyptian .tign Het, il.ins Amer. JnurH. af Semit. Lang., xi.ii 142-3. 

A. Ember, Several Egypto-Semitir etymolagie.^, d.uis Oneii.g, no. 1, .5-8, ctiidie les mots .suivants; rnChl 
harpoon, .spear; niCh; thirty; fnh-ir Phoenician; (r enter; gm-H grief, mourning; pizh be dishevelled, 
disarrayed; him catching offish and birds; A cover, hide; ling tliigh; hd chin, 

P. Hauft, in Joara. Amer. Oriental Sue., Xl.v, 318-29, ctudie 7'he Etymuhigy a f Egypt, tjm greylwHnd. 

K. Sethe, Zar agypti.a.-lien. Herkiiiift deg hebraigizhen .)/<(.<■,•,■,• Epha, dans la Zeitgehr. t. ag. Spr , i.xn, 61, 
apporte une coiitirmatiuu d'ordre phuiictique ii la dcrivati<in de la niesure hebraique du mot egyptien ip-t. 

La petite grammaire de G. Ruder, Aegyptkeh. (Iraimnatik, est annoncee par A. AViedemann, dans 
Theolog. Lit. Zeitwig, li, 389. 

H. Kees, Grammatisc/ie Kleinigkeiten, e.st analyse par L. B. Ellis, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 31. 

H. AAf lESM-ANN, ElliptUche Dwxle a potiori im AegyptiscLen, dans la Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., lxii, 66-7, 
attire ^attention sur les curieux duels de la forme | ^ ^ et ^ “ . 

AV. Till, Die Zusaniinenha nge ztcisehe/i den agyptischen and. genutigchen Personal pranoniina, dans la 
Wiener Zeitschr. far d. Kunde d. AlorgenL, xxxni, 236-52, ctudie les rapports entre le.s pronoms persoimols 
egyptieus et seiuitique.s. Gu uiciiie auteur ; Die i'eherrc.de de-t altagypitisclazn iinhetontcn {alte/en) Pronomen 
ahsolutum im Eopti.tchen, ibid., 125-30. ,lo n'ai pas vu ce.s deux travaux, p.is plu.s quo; K. Set he. Die 
agyptischen Ausdracke fiir "Jeder" und ihre ieiniti.tehei' Ei'tsprechungeu, ein nene.g Zeugnis fur die Ver- 
wandschuft, dans la Zeitschr. fur Semitistik, v, 1 -5. 

K. Sethe, Das Zahheort •\fdnf,'' dans la Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., Lxil, 69-1, moiitre que le iionibre cinq so 
lit, masc. dj ■ ic, fem. dj ■ t. 

L’etude de AA^. Spiegelbehg, Die neo.agyptische Prapusitian ni-dr “ fcgcn," est analysce par L. B. Ellis, 
dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 30. II y a lieu d'ajouter le travail de K, Sethe, Xeuagyptisches m-dr fiir m-dj, 
init Deitragen zvr Erkiaraag des Amenemope-Bnehes, dan.s Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., LXll, 5-8. AA^. Spiegel- 
BERG, Die Kunjunktio/i Ip' r( " zit der Zeit >co, u'a.nn, icenn, da, veil,'' dans la Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., 

LXII, 42-3, complete son etude aiitcrieure dans le Rec. de True., xxvi, 38. 

Quelques travaux sur la phoiietique; Aaron Ember, Partial Assiinilntian in Old Egyptian, dans 
Paul Haupt Festschrift, Leipzig, 300-12 ; id,, s to s before a labial in Egypt; Egypto-Semitir names for 
parts of the body, dans Jouni. Amer. Oriental Soc., XLVI, 351 ; AA'. F. Albright, Another case of Egyptian 
a = Coptic e, dans Xo. Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., lxii, 64; K. Se;the, Die angebliche Bezeichnang des Vokals i im 
Deniotischen, ibid., 8-13. 

H. Ranke, Tiernarnen als Personenna men hei den Aegyptern, est re.sume par L. B. Ellis, dans Ancient 
Egypt, 1926, 31. 

Deux etudes de K. Sethe .sont coiisacrees a eclairer la que.stioii de uoms royaux ; Der Horns- und der 

nh-tj-Aame des Ko nigs Cheops ; die mit den Bezeiehnungeii der Schtffergerdte ^ and J gebildeten A'arnen 
der Mentuhotp-Kbnige, dans la Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., LXII, 1-3 et 3-5. 


PALflOGRAPHlE. 

Eduard N.vville, UEcritare egyptieaae. Essai sur Vorigine et la fomiation de I’une des premi/res 
ecritures me'diterraneeniies, expose une fois encore ses idees sur les principes fond.ameiitaux de lecriture 



168 


JEAN CAPAKT 


hidrogh'phique et combat ardemment les transcriptions generalement admises dans I’eoole egjq)tologique, 
(Compte-rendu par D. 'RbvRXOTTE dans la Rev. de I' Inst, de Sodologie, Bruxelles, 565-6.) 

Wox Kexx, Origine et erolvtion de Vecriture hierngl gphique et de Veenture chinoise, Lyon.s (Etudes et 
documents publie.s ])ar I’ln.stitut franco-ehinois de Lyon, i). btudie oe qu’il appelle les “ ecritures soeur.s.” 
“ Cbacune d’elle a connu uii developpement particulier qui la fit independante de rautre”et pour re- 
preudre une ex2)res,siou de Panthier, “ .si elles out de grands raiJjjort.s de ressemblances, ce fait e.st du aux 
lois generale.s de I’e-sju-it humain.” 

Siegfried Schott public en un texte autogr.-qihib d’une iiianiero nialheureusement jieu agreable sa 
these: Vntermfhv.iigen zur Schriftge.ichichte der Fy/-(imideiite:ete,Iie\Ae\hevg. En se .servant des variante.s 
des textes de.s pyramides il presente une serie de remarques fort inqiortantes sur I’histoire et I’anciennete 
de ces textes fameux. 

W. SriEGELnERG, Pluturch-^ Deutiidg der Jlieraglyphe der Binse, dans Paid Huupt Festschrift, :313-14, 
montre jiar I’exenqile du cbapitre 30 du traite de Iside et O.siride cotnbien Plutarqne etait exactement 
renseigne du .sens de.s hieroglyjihe.s. 

S. A. B. Mercer, dans Jov.rn. Poe. Oriental Research, x, 106, lone D. P.vton, Aniraah of Ancient Egypt 
(1925). 

Religion. 


Voioi d’abord quelques ouvrages generaux foisant une jiai't a la religion egyiitienne : H. Ouxkel et 
L. ZscHARNACK, Pie Religion irn Geschichte vnxl Oegenwart, Tubingen, col. 95 et .s. ; R. Krkglisgeb, 
E Evolution religteuse de Ihumanite, Pari.s: Chaxtei'Ie de la S.vus.s.iye, Lekrhach der Religionsgeschichte, 
4® edit. (C.-R.: van der Leeuw, Mienire Theolog. Ptndicn, ix, 146-8), la jiartie egyi)tienne jjar H. 0. Lange 
(1924); M. SoDERBi.OM, cThUtoire des religions, Paris (1925) (C.-R. j>ar R. Krf.glinger, Revue de 

Phistorre des religions, xcill, 17.3-4): H. ^ orw.xhl. Die Rehgioneu des Ostens. 2. Aegyptische und seniitische 
Religionen, Breslau. 

L'atlas de H. Bonnet, Aegyptische Religion (Bilderatlas zvr Religionsgeschichte hrsg. von H. Haas 
Lief. 2-4), e.st I’objet do quelques reniarque.s de J. W. Hauer, O.L.Z., xxix, 326-7. 

Le tr^s utile recueil de Th. Hopfner, Fontes historiw religionis aegyptiacie, est I'objet de plusieurs 
compte-rendas : K. Preisendanz, dans Gnomon, ii, 478-81 ; J. .J lthner, dan.s Theologische Reeve, xxv, 85 : 
S. A. Mercer, dan.s dovrn. Poe. Oriental Research, x, 108. 

L’ouvrage classique de H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Te.ete zvrn Alter Testament, paralt en une 
seconde edition revi.stfo et augmentee. Berlin. La partie egyi)tienne est Tceuvre de H. Ranke (pp. 1-107). 

Th. Friedrich, Israel und seine Religion im Rahmen der corderasiatisch-agi/ptischen Knltur, Leipzig 
i'1925), e.st analyse 2 >ar F. ScH.... dans Bayer. Blatt. f. d. tlymn. Pchnlv:., lxii, 55. 

Le li\ re de Sir J.viies ir. Fk.vzer, The v'orship oj A ature, l, Lundres, contient de iiombreiises pae^e,s 
consacrees a la religion egyiitienne. 

Dans 'VY. Engel, Die Pchiclsalsidec iia Altertuni. Religionsmiss. Untersuchang {VeroffeHtlichuagen des 
Indogermanischen Seminars der Unirersitat Erlangen, Bd. 2), Erlangen, on trouvera un cbapitre sur 
I’idee du destin chez les Egyptieu.s. 

S. A. B. Mercer, Growth of Religion and Moral Ideas in Egypt, est analyse par J. Hoschaudeb dans 
Jew. Quart. Rev., xvii, 204-5. 

II e.st douteux que H. P. Block, Eine Gotterstatiie aus der Spatzeit, dans Acta Orientalia, 1926 v 74-5 
et 1 ) 1 . i, represente un dieu egyptien. 

Anion. 4Y. Spiegelberg, Der Heilige Widderkopf des Arnon, dan.s la Zeitschr. f ag. Pp-,-., lxii, 23-7 
avec 4 fig., donne la preuve que la tete de belier conime embleme d’Amon rare sous la XYIIP dynastie 
s’est repandue depuis la XIX“. 

Apis. Fr. \Y. V. Bissing publie Eine Apisfigur in der Haltang der Adlocntio dans Festschrift f. P. 
Hav.pt, 295-9, une statuette en bronze de sa collection, et une autre piece analogue d’Athenes : Apis 
Irnperator, dans .Archie fur Orientforschung, III, 119-20. 

Hathor. A. M. Hocart consacre une note aux O/eroijr.s- fo Ilathor" Aa,ns Man xxvi 192 II 

s’agit d’ex-vutos trouves a Dgr el-Bahrl. 


Imhotep. Le dieu de la mbdecine Imhotep a ete I’objet d'un livre bien fait de Jamieson B. Hdrry 
Imhotep. The vizier and physician of King Zoser and afterwards the Egyptian God of Medicine. On en 
trouver.i des compto-rendus par A. Calderini, dans Aegyptus, vii, 342 ; H. O. Lange, dans Deutsche Lite- 
ratarzeitang, XLvii. no. 51; M. A. M(l'rr.ly), dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 126. Voir un resume sous le 
titre de Imhotep. Egyptian deity oJ healing, dans The Antiquarian Quarterly, 1926, 221-4, 3 fig 



169 


BIBLIOGRAPHY ( 1926 ); ANCIENT EGYPT 

Le livre de W. Addison .Tavxe, The hmlhif/ gods of ancient cii'ilizations, 1925, est I’objet de compte- 
rendus par W. R. Hallidat, dans Journal, xti, 324-o ; R. Kreglisger, dans Recue de I’histoire des re- 
ligions, xciv, 196-9; S. E(eixach', dans Rer. Arch., xxiii, 370. 

Isis et Osiris. L’etrange livre de L. Chisda-Goldberg, Ber Osirisaamc ‘■'•Roi.” Ein Osirisaame in der 
Bihel, 1925, est resume par S. A. B. iM(ERCER) dans Jovrn. Soc. Orivnhd Research, x, 322, et execute par 
A. CuXY, La Bible et Osiris, dans Rer. des Etudes anciennes, xxviii, 203. Jo n'ai pas vu le compte-rondii 
de X. ScHLuciL, dans W.Z.K.HL, x.xxm, 252-74. 

L. B. Ellis, Lsis at Cologne and Air, dans Ancient Egiipt, 1926, 97-101, avec 4 tig., illustre le eulte 
d Lsi.s dans la region rhenane. 

Le livre cla.ssique de J. G. Frazer parait eu traduction francaise: Atgs et Osiris. Divers compte-rendus : 
JLercure de France, no. du 15 diioembre 1926; A. Calderixi, dans Aegyptus, vili, .342-3 ; R. Kreglisger, 
dans Rev. de I'hist. des religians, xcui, 334-5; S. K(Elx.\e'H), dans Rer. arch., xxiv, 295. 

H. JuxKER, Die Osirisrel igion and der Erlosungsgeda.nk-e l>ei den Aegyptern, dans Seinaine Internationale 
d' Ethnologic religieu.<e, 4"^ session, Milan, 1925-6, 276-69, est une tres tine etude sur le probleiiio de 
Texpiation dans le cadre de la religion osirienne. 

Ch. Picard signale une iirocession isiaque d'apres un inodele egyptieu sur une eolumiui ctelat.i du 
sanctu.iire des dieux egyptiens de la 9“ region a Rome (d’apres G. Maxcixi, Xot. Bead, 1925, 237-9), dans 
Rev. des Etudes grecqnes, 1926, 162. 

L’ouvrage d’A. HusCH, Die Stellung des Osiris iin thevlogisehen Systeui con Heliopolis, 1924, est I’objet 
de compte-rendus de L. B. E(lli.s) dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 126 ; ile H. 0. L.vxge dans Deutsche Litera- 
turzeitung, 1026, col. 798; de J. Lippl dans Theolagi.sche Remc, xxv, 1926, 126-7; de P. \ olz dans 
Theologische Literaturzeitung, li, 1926, no. 10. 

Je n'ai pas vu JI. Schede, Tsis-Prozession, dans Angelos, II, 60 et s., 1 pi. 

C’est Osiris lui-menie qui nous parle, assure Peter Miles, dans le livre intitule The Bool of Tr>ith or the 
Voice of Osiris. Set down in the House of El Eros-El Erua, they being rnale-femate, born according to the laics 
governing the Dkinnun- Adamic race, this being their fourth Incarnation ! Heureux editeur. . ..Pauvres lecteurs ! 

Kolanthes. Le dieu sur lequel IV. Spiegf.lberg attira I’attention dans la Zdtschr. f. ag. Spr., lviii, 
155, est I’objet d’une note de J. Bilabel, Der Gott Kolanthes, dan-s Archiv f. Papynisforschmg, vin,62. 

Xephotes. Vi. Spiegei.berg, Der Gott Xephotes \,Xfr-htp) und di-r KvtifpvrjTrjs des Xds, dans Zeitschr. 
f. ag. Spr., l.xil, 35-7, eclaireit plusieurs points relatifs an dieu Xfr-litp et aux fetes du Xil a Silsilis dout 
le KvSepvrjTTis etait sans doute un pretre. 

Pe-neb-onch. Vi. Spiegelbehg, Der Schlangengott Fe-neb-oneh, dans Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., LXll, 37-8, 
deuiontre que le diou Pe-neb-onch ii’cst autre chose qu’un serpent dont r<n pnssede l iinage sur un petit 
corcueil thcbaiii du Mu.sce de Berlin. 

SeJchniet. La liste .s’allonge toujoui-s des formes de Sekhmet couimemorees par les statues du temple 
de Mont: H. G.authier, Une nouvelle statue thebaine de la deesse Sakhrnet, dans Ann. Serv., xxvi, 95-6, 
en signale une nouvelle. 

P. Lacau, Sur iin des blocs de la Heine Maut-ka-re, dans d/t/i. Sere., xxvi, 131-8 etiidie la Course 
d’Apis” celebree par la reine Hatshepsout au tabernacle d’albdtre appelc “la Fondation d'.A.mon est stable.” 

Le eulte projirement dit et ses diverses manife-stations out ete traitiis par plusieurs auteurs ; H.axs 
Boxxet, Die Symbolik der Reinigungrn im agyptischen Kv.lt, dans Angelos, i, 103-21 ; Aylw.ard M. 
Blacrmax, Oracles in Ancient Egypt, dans .Journal, xii, 176-86; M.aurice Canxey, On Sand Rites, dans 
Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Soe., xii, 10; A. Scharff, Aeyyptische Sonnenlieder 
(1922) : compte-rendu par S. A. B. Mercer, Joura. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 218-19 ; Kurt Gallixg, 
Der Altar in den Kulturen des alten Orients (1925'; ; compte-rendus par V, Muller, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 
27-31 et S. A. B. Mercer, dans Journ. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 212-13. 

IV. Spiegelberg et IValter Otto, Eine neve Urkunde zu der Siegesfeier des Ptolemaios IV und die 
Prage der agyptischen Priestersynoden, dans les Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akadeniie der TCfsieji- 
schajten, Philosophisch-philologische und lii.storische Klas.se, 1926, 2. Abhandlung, est une importante 
contribution a I’etude de la vie religieuse egyptienne a IV-poque des Ptoleuiees. 

Magie. Le livre de Fr. Lexa sur la magie e.st I’objet de compte-rendus d’A. Calderixi, dans 
Aegyptus, vii, 338-40, et de D. IVahxotte, dau.s Revue de VInstitut de Sociologie, Bruxelles, 1926, 560-1. 
L’article Miracles'' by compressed air : tricks of ancient Egyptian priests, dans Illustrated London Xews, 
25 dec., 1926, 1265, fait preuve de plus d’imaginatioii que d'erudition. La these de H. IV. Obbixk, De 
magische beteekenis van den naam (1925) est analysee par R. Anthes, d.ans Literarisehe Wochensehrift, 

Journ. of Egyj)t. Arch. xiv. 22 



170 


JEAN CAPART 


1926, col. 1287, C. van Crombrugghe, dans Le Miiseon, xxxix, 370^1, S. A. B. JIercer, dans Journ. Soc. 
Orient. Research, x, 305-6. Citons ioi I’etude de Hermann Ranke, Zur Narnengebiing der Aegypter, dans 
O.L.Z., XXIX, 733-5. 

W. R. Daw.son, Some Ohser ratio ns on the Egyptian Calendars of lucky and unlucky days, Aslus, Journal, 
XII, 260-4, etablit la proportion des jours heureux, mallieureux ou douteux de I’annee (igyptienne. 

Attirons I’attention .sur le travail de AV. Deonna, Amulettes de I’Egypte contemporaine, dan.s la Renic 
d'ethnographie et des traditions popvlaires, Paris, vii, 1926, 237-44. 

Cvlte des Marts. H. Kee.s, Totenglouben... est critique par Fa. v. Bissing, dans Berliner Philologische 
Wochenschrift, .XLVi, 1123-32. 

AA’. Brede Kristensen, Het Leven nit den dood. Studien over egyptischen en ovd-griekscken Godsdienst, 
1926, (itudie le.s problemes suivants ; Le.s conceptions du niort comme ennemi et ami de la vie, la mort de 
rhoniine — La force vitalo niagique et ses symboles, la loi de la vie cosinique et ethique — Le tenqile et la 
tombe considere.s comme lieux de resurrection, I’erection des images et .symbole.s — La realisation de 
la resurrection dans le culte divin, le.s barque.s .sacrees, les mysteres d’Osiris. 

Pierre Lac.au, Suppi-es.sion des norns divins dans les textes de la chamhre funeraire, dans Ann. Serv., 
XXVI, 69-81, donne un intere.ssant ajoute a .son etude capitale dans la Zentschr. f. ag. Spr., 1914. 

P. AIontei, Chroniqne e'gypiologiqne, dan.s Revue des etudes nnciennes. xxviii, 61-2, analj'se I’edition de 
G. Lefebvre du Tomheuu de Petosiris. 

E. N.aville, Zes Premiers Mots du Chapitre XVII du Lirre des Marts, dans Bulletin de Vlnstitut 
frangais d'archeologie orientale, xxvi, 195-9, continue la polcmique avec K. Sethe sur le sens de I’ex- 
pression =^j^. 

AA'. Spiegelberg, Die Falkenhezeicknung derVerstorhenen in der Sputzeit, dans Zeitschr. f. Ug. Spr., LXli, 
27-34, niontre qu’a la bas.se ejxique les defiints .sent de.signes parfois comme des “faucons.” 

On doit enfin a A. AA'^iedemann une copieuse etude sur la croyance aux esprits : Der Geistergluuhen ini 
alien Aegypten, dan.s Anthropos, xxi, 1-37. 

Science. 

Medeoine. Egyptian Medicine, dans The Periodical, xi, 1926, 140, annonce le livre de Hurry sur 
Imhotej). L’etuJe de Fr, Ocmont, Le Sage Bothros ou le Phylarqne Aretas, dans Re^me de Philologie, 1926, 
19-33, traite incidemmont de la mc^ecine egyptienue. 

AA^arren R. Dawson commence une .scrie de recherclios sur I’anatomie, la medecine et la chirurgie qui 
promettent de donner de prccicux rcsultats : ifedieine and Surgery in Ancient Egypt, dans Asiatic Review, 
1926,165-76; Three anatomical Terms, d&ns Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr.,\,^\l, 1926, 20-3: mnd-t cheeks; wdd 
gall, gall-bladder ; kns pubas, hypoga.stric region. 

B. Ebbell, Die agyptischen Krankheitsnamen, dan.s Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., lxii, 1926, 13-20, identifie 
Fepilejisie, rhematurie, les cloches et le bouton d’Orient. AA^. IA’reszinski, Zur altagyptischen Tierheilkunde, 
dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, 727-32, donne une nouveUe traduction commentee du Papyrus veterinaire de Kahun. 

Botnniqve. AA'.arren R. Dawson, The Plant called '■‘■hairs of the earth f dans Journal, xii, 1926, 240-1, 
identifie la plante sn'i t! avec le fenugrec {Trigonella fcenurn gnecum L.). 

0, AIattirolo, I vegetnli scoperti nella tomba dell’ architetto Kha e disua rnoglie Mirit nelle iiecropoli di 
Tebe, dans Reale Accud. delle seienze di Torino, lxi, 1926, 545-68, apporte une contribution importante 
la botanique pharaouique. 

Zoologie. H. Ranke, Altdgyptischer Tierbilder (1925), est I’objet d’un compte-rendu de H. Bonnet, 
dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, col. 343. 

H. Bouss.ac, Le Canis typhonicus, dans Lrx Nature, 31 juillet, 1926, 65-7 et 5 fig., est une nouvelle 
tentative d’identification de I'animal de Seth, 

Les momies de chevaux decouvertes a Sakkarah ont ete I’objet de plusieurs notes; The first mummified 
horse found and the earliest known specimen in ancient Egypt, dans The Rlustrated London News, 17 juillet 
1926, 100, 3 tig. ; Mummies of two horses in the Sakkara necropolis, dans Art and Archaeology, dec. 1926, 
243 ; Recue arche'ologique, xxiv, 1926, 272 ; R. Dcssaod, dans Comptes Rendus de F Acadernie, 1926, 205. 

J. AV. AIurr.xy, Graces of Oxen in the eastern desert of Egypt, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 248-9, pi. xliv, 
signale de curieuses tombes de boeufs, dont la date I'este d’aiUeurs indeterminee. 

L'important memoire de Ce. G.villard, Recherches sur les poissons, est louc par P. JIontet dans Revue 
des Etudes aaciennes, xxviii, 1926, 63-4. Le livre de AY. Radclifpe, Fishing from the Earliest Times, a 
para en une seconde edition. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT l7i 

Dans le Fkld-Mimmm o f Natural History : Anthropology, leaflet 23 : Laufek, Ostrich egg-shell cups of 
Mesopotamia and the ostrich in ancient and modern times, on troiivera, pp. 16-20, des renseignements sur 
I’autruche dans I’anciemie Egypte. 

Mathematiques. L’editiou par T. Eric Feet du Paj)yrus Rhind a ete I’objet d’un compte-rendu im- 
jKR'tant par K. Sethe, dans Jahresber. d. deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, xxxiil, 139-43. 

Les S 2 )ecialistes touruent leur attention vers les problemes jwses ; H. Bosjiaxs, Note sur les mathi- 
matiques egi/ptiennes par Vetter, Wieleitner et Aarpinski, dans Recue des questions seientifiques, avril, 1926, 
481 ; L. (Jh. Kabpixski, The Roiirees of Greek Mathematics, chajdtre 1'‘ do A icomach as of Gerasa, Intro- 
duction to Arithmetic, transl. by M. L. d'Ooge, Xew \ork, 1926; 0. Necoebauer, Die Grundlagen dec 
dgyptischen Brackrechnung, Berlin, 1926 ; 0. Xeugebacer, 6’e6tv die Konstruktion con sp ^Alcd” im raathc- 
matischen Papyrus Rhind, dans Zeitschr. f. itg. Apr., LXii, 1926, 61-2; Abel Rey, Coup d ceil sur la 
mathematique egyptienne, dans Recue de synthese historiqiie, XLi, 1926, 19—62; H. ieleitxer, Kannten 
die Aegypter den Begrif eines allgemeiaen Bruchs i, dan.s Mitteilungen zur Geseh. dcr Medizin and der 
Naturicissenschaften, xxv, 1926, 1-4. 

Astronomie. Le lever de Sirius cst I’objet Je uouvelles oUservations 2 )ar L. Borchardt et P. V. Xeuge- 
BACER, Beobachtv.ng des Fruhavfgangs des Sinus in Aegypten, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, .109-16. Je nai 
pas vu M. P. XiLLSOX, La Computation des ternqis priniitifs et Vorigine du adendner, dans Soientia, xxxix, 
no. 170, 393 et s. 

Metrologie. Deux volumes du Catalogue des collections cgyptieuues de rUnivcr.sity College a Loudres 
sent consacres aux poids et mesm-es : Flixders Petrie, Ancient Weights and Mcsiires (E. R. A. and British 
School of Arch, in Egypt, xxxix) ; Glass stampis and weights (id., xl). 

Les deux etudes de E. 4 Veill, La “kite ” d’or de Byblos et Li unite de caleur shat, sont analysces avec des 
remarques iutcressantes dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 58 and 59. P. 58 analyse dEn. Xamlle, LOr bon 
d’ Egypte. 

Henry Lyons, Two notes on land-measurement in Egypt, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 242-4, ^d. xliii, et 
R. W. Sloley, An ancient surveying instrument: the Groma, dans Journal, xil, 1926, 65-7, 3 tig., nous 
initieiit au travail des anciens geometres arpenteui-s ; tandis que H. Sottas s’occupe des Mesv.res itine'raires 
ptolemaiques et le papyrus demotique 1J89 de Heidelberg, dans Aegyptiis, Ml, 1926, 23 <-42. 

Divers. L’ouvrage d’A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials, Londre.s, 1926, est de toute i>remiere 
importance, non seulement ijour 1 etude des antiquites, raais aussi iiour I’histoire des sciences. 

Citons entin quelques articles sur diver.ses questions techniqiie.s se lattachant aux sciences. Ch. Beauge, 
Les Carriires antiques en Haute-tgyptc', dans Bulletin de la Societe des Ingenieurs eoloniaux, no. 87, Paris, 
1926 20-34; J. Barthoux, Les Fards, pommudes et coaleurs dans I'antiquite, dans Congres international 
de Geographic, Le Caire, iv, 251-62; Earle Radcliffe Caley, The Leyden Papyrus A', dans Journal of 
Chemical Education, ill, 1926, 1150-66 ; Willy B. Xiemann, Das Eisen im alien Aegypten, dans Technik 
and Kultur, xvii, 1926, 61-4 ; Besse H. Schulze, Bier und Bierbereitung bei den Vulkern der Urzeit, fasc. 1: 
Bahylunien und Aegypten, 1926. 

Litter.ature. 

Les etudes en langue arahe ne pourraient-elles ctre accomiiagnces d’un bref resume en franjais ? Cela 
jiermettrait au moins de les classer sans risque d’erreur : L. Malha, Les papyrus, leur fabrication, leur 
histoire, leur decourerte, ce qiCils contiennent, etc., dans le Bulletin de la Societe archeologique df Alexandrie, 
xxii, 1926, 212-36. 

Les travaux dA. Erjian, Die Literatur et Die agyptischen Schulerhandschriften, sont analyses, le 
premier par W. Engelkemper, dans Theologische Reviid, xxv, 1926, 438-40, le second par H. O. Lange, 
dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, 632-3. 

H. Ranke reedite une .serie importante de traductions dans H. Gressmann, Altorientaliscke Texte zuni 
Alien Testament. 2= edit., Berlin, 1926, 1-107. 

H. Gbafow, Die bildlichen Ausdriicke des Agyptischen (1924) est I’objet de compte-rendus de S. A. B. 
Mercer, dans Jov.ni. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 1926, 107-8, et T. Eric Peet, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 320. 
F. Lexa, Les Ornements poetiqv.es du langage, resume dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 58. 

B. Gunn, Some Middle- Egyptian Pro-verbs, dans Journal, xil, 1926, 282-4, a retrouve tres habilement 
un certain nombre de “citations implicites” sous la plume des anciens scribes. 

Je n’ai pa.s vu Horace M' alpole. Hieroglyphic Tales, 1926. 

D. C. SlJli'SON, The Psalmists. Essays on their religious experience and teaching, their social background, 

22-2 



172 


JEAN CAPART 


md their place ia the developnieiit of Hehrev: Psalmody pav H. (tRESSmaxx, H. W. Robinsox, T. H. Eobix- 
sox, G. R. Driver, A. M. Blackman, Londres, 1926, traitc dii probleme si important des relations entre 
la litterature egyptienne et la litterature hebraique. 

La Sagesse d’Amenemope reste au premier plan des etudes : F. Ll. Griffith, The Teaching of 
A'meaophis the son of Kanakht. Papyrus B.M. 10474, dans Journal, xil, 1926, 191-231, en donne une 
nouvelle traduction commentee que D. C. Simpson fait suivre d'une etude sur les rapports aveo le livre 
des Provorbos : The Hebretp Book of Procerhs and the teaching of Amenophis, dans Journal, xil, 1926, 
232-9. L. Keimer, ThcWisdom of Amen-em-ope and the proverbs of Solomon, traito lo meme sujet dans 
American Journrd of Semitic Languages and Literature, xliii, 1926, 8 -21. 

S. E. K. Glaxville, A Ahew Duplicate of the Hood Papyrus, dans Jounud , xir, 1926, 171-i>, attire 
I'attention sur le document B.M. 10379 qui donne un duplicata du ‘‘ nianuel de hiLU-arehie.” L’auteur 
fait e.sperer comnie prochaine I’edition par Gardiner du fameux Glos.saire Golenisclieff. 

IV. R. Dawson, The Papyrus Lansing, dans Zeitschr. f ag. Spr., lxii, 1926, 64-5, siguale deux passages 
du Piqiyrus Lansing coniius dejii d’autre part; ce sont 7, l-4 = Sallier I, 6, 5-8 et Anastasi Y, 16, 5-17, 1, 
et 11, l-7 = Ana.stasi IV, 8, 7-9, 2. 

Je me contente de signaler N. Mescerski.i (sur la traduction de I’entretion d’uu dtlsabusc avcc son amo 
[en russe]) dans Zapiski Kollegii Vostokoeedor pri Azjatskorn iivsei Rossyskoj Akademi A"auk, Leningrad, 
II, 1926 (?i, 365-72. 

Fhax(,'OI.s Lexa, Papyrus Insinger. Les enseignements moraux d'tm scribe egyptien du premier siecle 
apres J. C., Paris, 1926, 2 vols., a donne son edition, attenduo depuis lougtemps, du fameux papyrus de 
Leydc. 

Un bon article de I'ulgarisation a etc ecrit par G. Roder, Enichnng und Unterricht im alien Aegypten. 
dans Voikerkirnde. Beitrdge zur Erkenntnis von Mcnsch und Kultur, ir, 1926, 85-90. 

Liox Kiox, Le ciril Ex-Libris. Conte de VEgypte ancienne, dans Bulletin de V z\ssociation beige des 
collection neurs et dessinateurs d’ Ex-Libris, ll, 1926, 21-3, e&t une ainusante fantaisio a propos de I’ex-libris 
d’Amtuiopliis IV {Journal, xii, 1926, 30-3,'. 

Archeologie. 

Prihistoire. L’ouvrage de J. de Morg.an, La Prehistoire orurntale, l, ost I'objet do plusieurs conipte- 
rendus : L. Capitax, dans Journal des Savants, 1926, 4-50-2; .1. Charpextier, dans Journ. of the Royal 
Asiatic Soc., 1926, 269-73, 358-62; G. Roder, dans LiterarUche Wochenschrift, 1926, 1131 ; A. VixcEXi', 
dans Revue des questions historiqucs, Liv, 11126, 148-5,5; Jou,rn. oj Hell. Studies, 1926, 141—2. Le deuxiemc 
volume intitule: EEgypte et V Afrique du Sord a paru, Paris, 1926, vi, 435 pp., 5 pi. et tigg. 

Quelques notes .sur Fhomme prehi.stc)rique ; Flixdek.s Petrie, Early man in Egypt, dans Oriens. The 
Oriental Revieic, Paris, l, 1926, 19 ; Report of the Proceeding.^ of Section H of the British Association, 
O.rford Meeting, dans Man, xxvi, 1926, 171-2; S. Reix.xch, HHornme prehis^orique en Egypte, dans Revue 
arche'ologique, xxiv, 1926, 269. 

E. 8, Thomas etudie comparativement les de.ssins de l Egypto, de la Libye et de FEspague primitive : 
A eompanson. of drawings from ancient Egypt, Libya and the South Sqjanish Caves, dans Journ. of the 
Royal Anthrop. Inst., lvi, 1926, 385-94, 7 fig. 

Le probleme du prehistorique du Fayouni a ete eclaire par les remarciuables etudes d’E. 4V. Gardner 
et G. Catox Thompson. The Recent Geotogif and XeoUthic Industry of the Xortherii Fayum Desert, dans 
Journ. of the Royal Anthrop. Inst., lvi, 1926, 301-23, pLs. xxxiv-xli, carte ; voir en suite : Flix’ders Petrie, 
Observations on "the recent geology and neolithic industry" The history of the Fayurn Lake, ibid., 325-6. 

P. Lovier Lapiehre signale diverses stations : Les gisements pale'olitkiques de la plaine de P Abhassieh, 
dans Bulletin de Vlnstitnt d’Egypte, VIII, 1926, 257-75, figg.; Stations pre'historiques des environs du Caire, 
dans Congr'es international de geoyraphie, Le Caire, iv, 1926, 298-308; Une Xoiirelle station ne'oUthique 
{El-Ornari) au nord d'Helov.an, ibid., 268-82. 

Les probities generaux du prehistorique et du passage a la periode historique sont etudies 2 >ar 
A. ScHARFF, dans Georg Moller, Die archaeologischen Ergehnisse des Vorgeschichtlichen Criiberfeldes von 
Ahusir el-Melecq, Leijizig, 1926. 

Citons encore ; C. Calice, Zur Vorgeschichte der agyptischen Kultur (en hougrois avec traduction alle- 
mande), dan.s Archaeologiai Ertesito, XL, 1923-6, Budapest. 

Musees: Berlin. Eru-erbungen vorn Marz und April Aegyptische Ahteilung, dans Berliner Miiscen 

XLVil, 1926, 73-4. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT 173 

British Musecji. H. B. IB all) ^ignule de receiites acquisitions dans The BritM Museinn Quarterly, l, 
iy26, 42-3, pi. xxiii et 65-6, pis. .xxxv-xxxvi. 

Caire. G. Roder doniie une noiivelle edition du Guide : Fnhrer dnrch das iluseiiui der a<j>fptisdaai 
AlUrtumer in Kairo, 1926. 

Darmstadt. Landesmusev m Darnistadt. Kanst- mid histurische Saniiiiluiajeii. Ver^eichniss den agyptl- 
sehen Sammhmg (1925). 

Hamburg, il. Sauerlaxdt, Benkhi uher die Xenerieerhungen des Ja/avs Jastus Bnneknia nn 

GeseUsehaft. Hamburg, 14-33 a\ec 11 tig. 

Leiden. llijlcs-Miiseinn cvn (Judheden. Egypt ische K mist en heschaiing i,is Rijks-Miiseuiii fun Ond/ieden. 
GUIs foof de cgyptiscke Afdeeting, Le Have, 1026. Le volume XII de la grande publication fl925) est 
I'objet d’un eompte-rendu par T. G. Allen, dans Amer. Jovrn. of Seniit. Lang., xlii, 1926, 69-72. W. D. 
VAX A\^yngaarden publie le volume xiii ; Lijkcazen en lijkcazenJeisteii, reproduisant et dccrivaut les canopes 
et les eoffres a cauope.-. 

Louvre. Ch. Bokeux, Aniiqn Ues egyptiennes, dans Bean.f ^1/2^, iv, 1926, 261-2, 3 tig. 

Mo.sc'ou. Musee de Moseun, i, no. 2, 1926, Moscou (cn rus.se), 8-10 et 3 ill.; acquisitions nouvelles de la 
section egypticnue. 

Nem’ York. il. Lambrixo, Eiuiehisseinents des niusees de Akw York et de Cleveland, dans Bean.f Arts, 
IV, 1926, 107 ; A. L.ansing, da Old Eingdom senibe, dans Ballefin of the Metropolitan Alaseum of Art, xxi, 
1926, 38-43, 2 tig. ; A. M. Lyihgue, d Gift to the Egyptian Colleetion, ibid., 4 et 6, 2 tig. 

Philadelehia. The Eekley Brinton Co.ve Junior Egyptian Wing, dans The Maseuin Jotimal, Phila- 
delphia, XVII, 1926, 101-27 et 13 pi. 

Turin. G. di Casamichela, Eerst ceuwfeest van het Egyptisehe AIvsemn te Tnryn, dans Opga.ng, iv, 
1926, 594-600, article sur le jubilii oentonaire du inu.see de Turin. 

Ventes de Colleetions. Plusieurs collections ont ete dispersees en 1926 chcz Sothoby : Catalogue of the 
Colleotions funned by the lute Lord Carmichael of Skirli/tg (8 juin et s.j ; Catalogue of the palaeolithic 
implenients, Egyptian, Greek, Cypriot and Roman antiquities. ..the property of John Bateman (21 juin); 
Catalogue of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Cypriot and Indian antiquities, etc., comprising Egyptian objects, 
collected by Airs John Garstang (22 juillet et s.t ; Catalogue of Egyptbin, Babylonian, Greek and Roman, 
antiquities formed by Baron A'ugent...noiv the prop>erty of Lord Vernon. (16 dccembre et .s.). 

Trois ventes a rHOtel Drount a Paris inbritent d’etre signalce.s, surtout la premiere ; Catalogue des 
antiquite's egyptiennes, grecques et romaiiies...procen.ant dn Ca.hiaet de curiosites de C. L. F. Fiyinekou.cke) 
(25 mars) ; Catalogue des antiquite's egy pto-pheniciennes, grecques et ilaliotes...proveu(.int de I'aueienne col- 
lection Knight dljuiigi; Catalogue des antiquite's egyptiennes, grecques ct rornaines (6 et 7 dccembre;. On 
trouvera des details sur le Cabinet Pauckoucke dans le Figaro illustre des 20 et 27 mai 1926, 506-7 et 
522, 3 fig. 

Art. Rc'pondaiit an gout d’un public toujours plus nombreux, les ouvrages d’art egyptien se multiplieiit ; 
Ch. Boreux, EArt Egyptien, Paris, 1926. Compte-rendu.s de C'ostenau, dairs le Alerenre de France, 1926, 
216-18 ; Ancient Egypt, 1926, 92. 

Jean Capart, EArt Egyptien. Etudes ct Llistoire, i, est analy.se par W. CV'olf, Deutsche Literatur- 
zeitung, 1926, col. 762-3. Le recueil Architecture du mcme par S. A. B. Mercer, dans Joara. Soc. Oriental 
Research, x, 1926, 216-17. 

L. CuRTics, Antike Kvnst, I. Aegypten und Vorderasien, e.st I’objet d'articles par TY. von Bissing, dans 
Berliner Phllol. fVockenschrift, XLVi, 1926, col. 56-66, et R. Mocterde, dans ALekrnges de 1' Unicersite' 
St Joseph, XI, 1926, 374-6. 

Le petit livre de Hermann Kees, Aegyptische Kunst, Breslau, 1926, est tres bien fait et plein de 
remarques fort justes. Par centre Henry ^Martin, EArt egyptien, VArt assyrien, I' Art perse (La Gram- 
maire des Styles), Paris, 1926, est sans valour reelle. 

Quelques tris belles planches d’art egyptien sont a sign,aler dans George Kowalczyk, Decorative 
Sculpture, with an introduction by A. Foster, Londres, 1926. 

Signalons la nouvelle edition (avoo un chapitre supplementaire) de Flinder.s Petrie, Les et 
ALe'tiers dans rancienne tlgypte, traduit par Je.yn Capart, Bruxelles, 1926. 

A. A. Qcibell, Egyptian History und Art, est I’objet dun compte-rendu par G. Roder, dans O.L.Z., 
XXIX, 1926, 254-5 ; H. Schafer et 4V. Axdhae, Die Kunst des alten Orients, par N. de Garis Davies, 
dans 0.Z.2'., xxix, 1926, 122-5 et par A. Schahff, dans Der Cicerone, iviii, 1926, 546 -7 ; Anton Springer, 
Die Kunst des Altertums (edit. 1923), par L. Glrtius, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, 117-22 ; F. W. v. Bissing, 



174 


JEAN CAPAET 


Da Oo&t<:i'&’'he (Ji •oiullay der Kiuislycsc/iieJeius (1925), par Robert Heidenreich, dans Archiv far Orient- 
forschaiiff, III, 1926, 83-1; H. Schafer, (Jrundlagen dvr dyijptisalim Ituudhddaeru (1923), par H. “Wolff, 
dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, 31-4. 

Feknaxd VAX GoETHEil, Het Zinnebeeld in de Kunst ot De Symholen der Alytholugie in de egyptische 
A'u/i-st, Anvers, 1926 (autographie), ne sont guere que d’ingenieuses reveries. 

Art d’El-A/iiarna. James Baikie, The Amama Age. A Study of the crisis of the ancient world, 
LonJres, 1926, donne uno excellente idee d’enseuible du proBleme de Tart d’Anieaiophis IV dans son 
eadre liistorique. On lira avec iin vif interet Tetude spdciale de H. Schafer, Das Wesen der '■‘■Amarna- 
hunst,’’ dans Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Oesellschaft, no. 64, 1926, 56-61, pis. ii-v. ^ oir sur les 
etranges tetes de Karnak, une courte note de S. Reixach dans Revue archeologirjuc, xxiii, 1926, 129. 

G. Benedite, Sur tuie tite de princesse d'‘ Akhoiuiaten, dans ilonunients Riot, xxvii, 1926, 113-18, pi. xi, 
edite la rernarquable tete aequise par le Louvre. La petite piece en pate de verre publiee par le meme 
auteur {Rec. de I’Egypte Ancienne, l, 1925) ost appreciee dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 59. 

H. Schafer, Kopf einer Konigin uus Amarna, dans Hauptvxrke aus den Staatlichen Unseen za Berlin, 
Agypt. Abt., pi. 5, edite un des plus fins morceaux de la .serie. 

La statuette trouvee par PEgypt Exploration Society et attribueo an Museo do Brooklyn est publico 
par Th. Whittemore, ^1 Statuette of Akhenaten, dans Recueil d’etudes dediees ii la rnenioire de N. P. 
Kondakov, 1926, 259-62 et pi. xxix. 

Ce u’e&t pas sans plaisir que Pon etudie la publication do Clara Sieuexs et Geeihe Auer, KOnig 
Echnaton in El-Aniarna, 1926, 16 pi., dans laquelle les auteurs out cssayc de nous donner la vision de la 
capitale d’Amcnopliis R'. 

Touihe de Tovtaakhamon. Lc Musee du Caire edite unc Notice sommaire sur les ohjets provenant de la 
toinbe de Toutankhuinon actuellenient e.rposes an Muse'e dn Caire par Vaduiinistraiion du Mitse'e avec tra- 
duction anglaise : ^1 short description of the objects from the tomb of Tutankhamun now ewhibited in the Cairo 
Alvseam published by the Museum authorities. 

h’ R! ast rated London News, no. 4550 du 3 juillet et no. 4552 du 17 juillet, ot V Rlustration, de Paris, 
nos. du 6 fcH’i'ier et du 3 juillet, donnent des photographies des cercueils et des bijoux. Voir aussi 
IV 1\'olf, Zur Of mtng des Surges Tutancharnons, dans Rlastrierte Zeitung, no. 4226, 11 mars 1926, 319-21 
et fig. 

Ch. BoREC.x, Les deconcertes recentes au iomheau de Toutankharnon, dans Beaux Arts, IV, 1926, 77-8; 
Tuatankhainoii {La decov.certe du tombeau de), Asms, Larousse mensuel illustie, no. 232, juin 1926, 157-8, 
2 tig.; Rexe la Bruyere, Une Visits it Tout-ank-Amon, dans Rente des deu.c mondes, xcvi, 1926, 921-30, 
et TiU-a nch-Aiiioiis Grub, dans Archiv fitr Orientforsehung, III, 1926, 201 ; trois articles seulemont ; Pintcr6t 
pour la fameu.se decouvorte a subi un moment d’arret. 

Architecture. F. W. vox Bissixg, Zur Oeschichte der “roten N'ischen” in El Arnanxa, dans Archiv fur 
Orientforsehung, III, 1926, 174-6, oxpliquo les niches dites “ decoratives ” des maisons d’El Amarna, 
comme etant le lieu du culte domestique. (Voir me.s Le^'ons sur VArt Egyptien, p. 288.) 

La nouvelle edition de il. L. Gothein, Geschichte der Gartenkunst. I. Von Aegypten bis zur 
Rena.issance in Itcdien, Spanien und Portugal, Jena, 1926, contient une importante etude sur les jaixJins 
egyptiens. 

Nombreux compte-reudus : d’E. Baumgartel, Dolmen und Mastaba, par Th. Dombart, dans Hist. 
Jfjhrb., XLvi, 1926, 443 et s., par T. Eric Feet, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 321-2 ; de H. Bonnet, Zur 
Baageschichte des Mentuhoteptenxpels, et de N. de G. L).yvies, The Place of audience in the palace, par 
L. B. Elli.s, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 30; do G. Jequier, H Architecture et la decoration dans f Ancienne 
Egypte, par P. iiloxiET, dans Revue des Etudes aixeierxnes, xxviii, 1926, 59-61 ; id., Manuel d’archeologie 
egyp/tienne. Les elements de V Architecture, par P. Moxtet, ibid., xxxviii, 1926, 66-7, par A. Bacdhillart, 
dans Larousse mcnsuel, avril 1926, 90-1, par A. van Genxep, dans Mercure de France, 1926, 471-3. 

H. Lacoste, Une Zeyo/t du passe pour le temps present, dans E Emulation, Bruxelles, xlvi, 1926, 145-53, 
a\ ec 15 ill., est un compte-reudu par un arehitecte de J. Capart, Thebes. La Gloire d’un grand passe. 

Citous une etude de vulgarisation de M. Weebrocck, La Maison egyptienne, dans La Femme beige, 
no. 10, mai 1926, 739-45. 

Xou.s devons a E. A. Wallis Budge uu ouvrage d’ensemble sur la question des obelisques; Cleopatra’s 
Needles and other Egyptian Obelisks, Londre.s, 1926, xxiv, 308 pp., 17 pi. et 22 fig. 

Pyra nudes . L. Borc.o.ardt a public un important travail sur les dimensions reelles et I’orientation de 
la grande pyramide de Gizeh : Etngeii u. Richtungen der cier Gruxxdkanten der grossen Pyretmide hei Oise. 



175 


BIBLIOGRAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT 

Mit Bemerkiuigen iiber d. Besvcherinschriften an d. Pt/ramide r. E. ilittiKovh u. E. Sittiy, Berlin, 1926. 
Quelques remarques sur Tarticle de R. Exgelbach, On the Size and Orientation of the Great Pyramid, 
dans Ancie7it Egypt, 1926, 56. 

O. Gillaix, La Grande L'yramide (LEyypte, Bruxelles (Collection PEglantine, no. 12), e.st une petite 
brochure de vulgari.sation d’mie lecture trfes iiitere.s.saiitc. 

E. Boisacq, Brelan d’etynwlogier, dans Rente de V Unirersite de Brn.rGle.i, xxxii, 1926, 79-81, pivsente 
une etymologie du mot pyrumide. 

Quelques ouvrages a ajouter a la bibliographie dej,\ si copieuse de la “Religion de la Pyramide”; 
Ch. Laghaxge, La Ghronologie egyptienne de Mone'thon et »a concordance de fait orec to chronologic litterale 
du texts hebreu de la Bible (Extr-iit du tome lll des Lecone sur la Parole de Dieu), Bi-uxelles, 1926 ; “ Dis- 
CIPULUS,” The Great Pyramid: its construction, symbolism and chronology. With (t ft re word by D. Daridson, 
Londrcs, 1926; Edgar Mortox, The Great Pyramid: I'tlJf .i.u. and the Great Pyramid, i. Its scientific 
features, il. Its time features. III. Its spiritiud symbolism, Lo\\(hLe:S,\Wll). 

Tonibes. F. W. vox Biatil'SG, Bu-ei Graher eines Toten, Anns. Zeitschr. f. ay. Spr., LXil, 1926, 65, exprime 
le vueu de voir quelqu’un etudier cn detail le probl^me des “deux tombes'’ pour uii seul mort. Dans la 
sagesse d’Amenemope le sage est dit avoir une pyramide a Panopolis et uu hypogee eu Abydos. 

La belle edition de la Tombe des deux Sculpteurs a Thebes par Js. de O. Davies est louee par H. R. 
Hall, dans The Burlinyton Magazine, xlix, 1926, 249 et S. A. B. Mercer, dans Journ. Soc. Oriental Re- 
search, X, 1926, 215-16. L’ouvrage de (4. Leff.bvre .sur le tombeau de Petosiris est Fobjet de notes par 
P. Moxtet, dans Rente des Etudes ancienn.es, xxviii, 1926, 61-3 et Ch. Picard, Sculptures d'Egypte, dans 
Revue des Etudes greegues, 1926, 156-7. 

G. Rodkh deerit le mastaba trausporte de Gizah a Hildesheim ; Die Grahkarnmer des Chemka. im 
Pelizaens- Museum zu Hildesheim, dans Alt-HUdesheini, no. 7, nov. 1926, 55-66 et tig. Une couide note 
de H. T. signale La Vhambre se'pulcrale du. prinee Canjnjsouti au Muse'e de Vienne, dans I' Amour de V Art, 
Paris, 1926, 36, ill. 

H. F. Lutz, Lintel and Jamb of the Hypogemn of Sn-ndrn, dans Oriens, i, 2, 1926, 17-20, 6 iig., publie 
des fragments arrives au Musee de San Francisco de la colebre tombe de Seu-nedjem a Der el-Medinah. 

Dotvs Duxhaii, Two Royal Ladies of Meroe, e.st I’objet d’un compte-reiidu par E. B. dans The Bur- 
lington Magazine, XLViii, 1926, 161. 

Mb D. VAN Wyngaaedex publie et comiaeiite Een stele ran Horeniheh dan.s Oudheidkundige Mcde- 
deelingen uit ’s Rijksrnuseum can Oudheden te Leiden, vil, 1926, 1 fig. 

Mamies et cercueils. Le grand ouvrage d'E. .1. Smith et Mb R. Dawsox e.st aniioncc par S. A. B. 
Mercer dans Journ. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 1926, 104—). 

H. Schafer publie un cercueil peint du Musee de Berlin, contenant une momie de serpent saore : 
Das Schlangensa'rgehen no. Hit der Berliner agyptisdien Sammlung, dans Zeitsekr. f. ag. Bpr., i.xil, 1926, 
39-42, 4 fig. 

On doit a A. M’iedemaxn I’eMition detaillee d un cercueil saite aveo coininentaires religicux lUissi 
precieux qu’abondants : Ein ligyptiseher Sarg der Saitenzeit im akademi-iehen Kunstmuseum zn Bonn, dans 
Bonner Jahrbiicher, 1926, 148-79, pis. iv et v, 

Quelques curiosites : Fragments de sarcophagi's e'gyptiens en carton peint et dore...provenaut de rancienne 
collection de M. Daninos Pacha, Hotel Drouot, vente du 7 m.ii 1926 ; Revue des ventes du moi.s d'avril : 
Momie thebaine, dans Figaro artistigiie, 2t m.ii 1926, 523 1; Ch. Leleux et M. Gouixeau, Qtie rerilc la 
radiographic dune momie, dans Je sais tout, Pari.s, no. 243, mat’s 1926, 32-6, no. 244, avril 1926, 93, figg. 

Ouchabtis. L. B. Ellis, dans Ancient Egypd, 1926, analyse F. E. Ges.s, Ushahti and sarcophagi in the 
Hermitage Museum ; P. Moxtet, dans Rente des Etudes anciennes, xxviii, 1926, 64-6, fait le compte-rendu 
de L. Speleers, Les Figurines funeraires. H. G.acthier, Mote sur le.s statuettes funeraires trouvees dans les 
tombes de Tehneh, dans Ann. Serv., xxvi, 1926, 41-3, apporte une intere-ssante contribution a IV'tude du 
nombre de statuettes deposees dan.s une meme tombe. 

Beliefs. G. de Viaxxa Kelsch croit etre le premier qui ait dticouvert la loi d’isocephalie dans les 
reliefs egyptiens: Applicaeoes praticas do canon Tiburtius na rectifi cacao de erros tradicaaiaes, dans Boletin 
do Instituio Brasileiro do Sciencias (Rio de Janiero), i (1925), no. 3; ii (1926), no.s. 2, 4, 5 ; iii (1927), no. 1, 
avec nombreuses figures. 

H. Schafer, The angebliche Entstehung der itgyptuehen Watidbilder mts Wa ndbehang, dans DenUche 
Literaturzeitung, iii, 1926, 1879-86, fig., rejette Fidee que les reliefs des tonibes seraient la copie de 
tapisseries. 



176 


JEAN CAPAET 


Ch. Boreux, Un bas-relief ail nom d’line princesse royale de la 1V‘ dyaastie, est resume dans Ancient 
Egypt, 1926, 59. Pierre Moxtet, Les Scenes de la. vie privee, est I'objet de plusieurs compte-rendus : de 
J. Cai'art, dans Recue beige de philulogie et d’histotre, v, 1926, 1050-2 ; de S. A. B. Merceh, dans Journ. 
Soc. Orient. Research, x, 1926, 105-6; de T. Eric Peet, dans Licerpoal Annals, xiil, 1926, 97. 

H. Schafer, Zicei Flachbildnisse : Bildnis des Besitzers ernes (Jrabes der Ryranuden Zeit. Bildais des 
Besitzers eines Grahes des Neuen Reiches, dans Ilan pticerke ans den Staatlichen Miiseen -M Berlin, Aegypt. 
Abt., pi. ii, publie deux beaux reliefs du Musee de Berlin. 

L. B. Eli.is, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, .30, enregistre I'attributioii par W. .SriEOEt-EERCT du beau relief 
fuueraire de Berlin, a Pepeque d'Horemheb. 

IV. SriEGEEBEHG, daiis Afnnch/ier Jahrh. d. bildenden Kunst, X.E., iv, 1926, 126-S, attire I’attention 
,sur un fragment de relief de Tnutankhainon a niettre en relations avec les .scenes peintes du co&ret fameux. 
II iiisi.ste sur le caractbre egyptien de ces representations oil certains ehercheiit trop faeileiiient une in- 
fluence L^rangere. 

F. IV. vox Bissixg, Ueber cine Gnibaiind ans Alemphis in der Glyptuthek Kniiajs Ludojigs, dans 
Alirnehner Jahrbnch der bildenden Kimst, X.F. I, 1926, 207-24, 4 fig., publie un reinaiquable fragnient 
du tombeau du clief des artistes du Koi, Anieneniin, an ilu.see de Munich, et un panueau du Kestner 
Museum de Hanuvre. II etudie longueiuont le theme de la deesse dan,-, I'arlire aupres duquel viennent 
s’alimenter les laorts et leurs anies. H, P. Blok, Vijf G rafreliefs vit het nkiwe Rijf, dans Bulletin can 
de Vereeniging tat becordering der dennis van deantieke beschacing, Le Haye, I, 1926, 17-2t), 3 tig., siguale 
cinq fragments du tombeau du chef do.s orfc\-re.s du temple de Sethi Pq Sai-m-peter. 

F. IV. vox Bissixg, Bas Verhaltnis des Ibi-Grabes in Theben zu deni Ibi-Grabe run Dvir el -Gebraici, 
dans Archil' fur Orientforschiuig, III, 1926, 53-5, montre que le decorateur de la tumbo tht'-baine d'epoque 
•■-aite n'a pas copie la lombe plus anciomie de Der el-Gebrawi, mars qu'il --'e.st servi san^ doute de.' meme.s 
cahiei's do modules. 

Ch. Dcoas, Bas Relief greco-egypticn, dan.s Revue de.s Etudes grccgues, 1926, 264, se refere ii Lefebvhe, 
dans Monuuients Riot, xxv, pi. xvii. C. C. v.xx Essex, Hellenistiscli Relief met I’roeessie coor Offer, dans 
Bulletin can de Vereeniging tot becordering der dennis van de antiede beschacing, l, 1026, 11-15, jiublie un 
relief ii representations egyptiennes de .style givco-italique. 

Peinture. Les relei’es executes par Mile Baud, au emirs de ses mission^ ii Thebe-,, out ete ex 2 )o,se.s 
avoc grand succes a Paris, a Bruxelles et ii Leydc: Marcelle Baud, Bueuments d'art egyptien. Dessins de 
tohibeaux thebains de la XVIIB it la XXVP dynastie. Miisee de.s Arts decuratifs, jauvier — fuvrier 1926. 
Voir CoxiEXAF, dans le Mercure de France, 15 mars 1920, 713-14 ; Beau.r Arts, no. 2, 23-4, fig. ; Bulletin 
de I' Art cineien et rnodeme, fevr. 1926, 49 ; Art et Decoration, fe\'r. 1926, Chronniuo, 1-2. 

Le Metroiiolitan Museum edite separeinent des iil.inohes ooloriees de.s toinbcs thelj.iiucs : Coloured 
reproductions of Egyptian Wa.ll paintings, 9 sujets diflerents. 

Sculpture. G. Ruder, Die Voryeschichtliche Plastld Aegypteus in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Bildung des 
aegyptischen Stils, dans Iped. Jahrbuch fur prahi.storische und ethnographisehe Kunst, 1926, 64-84, pis. 25-31, 
(itudie le.s dtflmts de la plastique en Egyjitc et cherche une fois de plus ii cTablir de.s raiqiorts entre le 
lu-ehistorique de Haute Egypte et Fart iiharaonique. 

Le livre de Mine iM. Wetxaxts-Rokday, Bes Statues ricantes. Bitrud'iction it I'e'tade des statues 
egyptiennes, cherche avant tout a reiioiidre a la que.stion ; Pourquni les Eg\-ptien.s faisaiout-ils des statues ? 
Comjite-reiidus dans Papi/ue biblioyraphicie, I, 1926, 263; S. Reixach, dans Revue areheologiqne, xxiv, 
1926, 291; P. Schebasia, dan.s Anthropos, XXI, 1926, 1054-5; Bulletin de V Art aucien et moderne, nov. 
1926, 304. 

H. Schafer imblie iflusieurs .scul[)ture.s d’animaux du Musee de Berlin : Rundbild eines liegenden 
Luirea aus deiii Beginn der geschichtlichen Zeit — Ztrei Tierdopfe: Loicendopf der Pyramidenzeit — Wolfsdopf 
dcs Xeiien Reiches, dans Hauptirerde aus den Staatlichen APaseen zu. Berlin. Aegiqit. Abt., jjI. 1 et 3 ; 
Fine Statue des Schnuiniridders aus der Zeit des Cheops, dans O.L.Z., X.XI.X, 723-7, j)!. ii et 6 fig. 

Dans L. Mexiuri, La Collezione Gualino, i, jjI. lii, est reproduit im groupe de famillo d’ancien empire. 

H. Gadthieh, Une Statuette aatirieure a la. XP dynastie, dans Aim. Serv., xxvi, 1926, 273-4, publie le 
texte grave sur la base de la statue d'uii Antef, aiipartenaut depuis plusieurs aimees k un marchand 
do Thebes. 

H. Fkaxkfort, a Alasterpiece of early middle Kingdom sculpture, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 143-4, 
111. xxi, met en valeur le fin moreeau de sculpture decouvert en Abydos et conserve maintenant ii k 
Glyptothek de Copeuhague. 



177 


BIBLIOGHAPHY ( 1926 ): ANCIENT EGYPT 

A propos de I’arrivee au Louvre de .sculptures royales trouvees itedamud on lira : G. UiiNEDiTE, 
Encore Se'sostris III {Dehats du 3 janvier 1926), dans Rerve orcheolaijiij^uc, xxiii, 1926, 318-22 ; Coxtenau, 
dans le Mercure de France, 15 mars 1926, 714-15; Art and Archaeuhniy, xxir, 1926, 196. 

H. Schafer public une tete royale et une statue de Reine du Mu-^ee do Rerlin : Ein Knniitskopf dcs 
rnittleren Reiches — Standhild einer Konigin der SjjtiReit, dan.-, Haiiptn'erkn </-'.< den StaatHehen Alnseen ;?< 
Berlin, Aegypt. Abt., pis. iv et vi. 

G. A. W.XIXWRIGHT, Statue of Horus son of Kharu, est aii.dyse dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 57. 

Signalons enfin Egyptian arragonite bust of a priestess, dan-. The Antiguariau I, 1926, 237 

et 1 pi. 

Agriculture. Le livre de F. Hahtmaxx, E Agriculture dans Tuneienne Eaupte .1923'i, e.st signalii dans 
Bulletin bibliog raphiqv e et pe'dagogique da Alusee Beige, xxx, 1926, 30. A. BnRXARD etudie La eharrue en 
Egypte, dans Congres international de Geographie, Le C'aire, 1925, iv, 2S3-93 ; Aji ancient Egyptian hoe 
recently found in the Tomb of Akhenatenks grand citier, Ranwse. at Thebes, est reprotluite in The Illustrated 
London Aheu's, no. 4.534, 13 luar.s 1926, 464. 

Armes. H. Boxxet a con.sacre une etude a rarmement de.s pei^de.s do rancien Orient . Die )Vafen 
der Volker des Alteii Orients, Leipzig, 1926. 

il.XLLON, Une Hache egyptienne trouree en Syrie. est .signnle par .1. Forget dans J.e Musi'oii. xxxix, 
1926, 374-5: G. A. Waixwright, A dagger of the early A’eu- Kingdom, est resume dans Aiicitnt Egypt, 
1926, 55. 

Bateaux. A. KOster nous donne uiie tAude d'en.semble sur la navigation maritime egyptienne ; fahrten 
der alien Aegypter, Berlin, 31 pp. et 100 tig. Le meinoiro du uieiue .uiteur. Sehifahrt uad llandeUrerkehr 
des ustlichen ALittehneers ini A. a. Jalirt. v. (.'hr., 1924, est Fobjet de eompte-rendus par A. (.'.\li'EUIXI, 
dans Aegyptvs, vii, 1926, 335, et E. Bux, daits Ihnn. dynxn., xxxvir, 1926, 128. Ch. Bokeux, JjArt de la 
nacigtUion en Egypte, est I’objet de remareiue.s interessantes dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 90-1. 

Palettes en schiste. H. Raxke, Exne Benxerkting cur “ Karrner -Palette, est resume pur J. Friedrilh 
dans O.L.Z., XXIX, 1926, 631 ; voir Hehx, dan.s Deutsche Literature., 1926, 993-6. H, Raxke, .\lter und 
Uerkunft der agyptischen Luicenjagd-Palette,’' est analyte par L. B. Elli.s dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 93. 
L. Keimer, Beuierkungen zur Schiefertafel von Hierakonpolis, elans Acyyptut, vii, l!l26, 169-88, pl.s, n-iv, 
contirme par ses etudes independante.s le.s resultats deinontre.s par H. Ranke. 

Sceaux. Ancient Egypt, 1926, pp. 29, 30, 68-9, 116-19, analyse N. D. Flittxeh, Egyptian ( 'ylind' rs or 
the Oolenichef Collection, Max Pieper, Die agyptischen Skarabden and ihre Sachhildnugen in Jen Miitel- 
‘xneerldndern, et publie il. Matthieu, Some Scarabs froni the South of Russia, et V. Sircve, Ei//ptian. 
Sealings in the Collection of the Academieian K. P. Likhatscheu-. 

Vetenients. Leon Heuzey, Le Costume oriental dans l'a_,itiquit(. I. I.e Costume (gyptien, dans <dazette 
des Beau.c Arts, xiv, 121-30, 6 fig., n'e.st qti’uno introdue-tion a Ti-tude du votement eigyptien. Lo nieiuoire 
de C. H. JoHL, AltOgyptische Webstkhle, est analyse par H. Boxxet elans Deutsche Literature., iii, 1926, luu7. 

Arts industriels. A con.sulter les deux ouvrages generaux de H. Schmitz, The Eneyelopaerlia of 
furniture et Das ALdbeliverk, Berlin, 1926, pis. i-vii, il. Wekbkoeck a con.sacre* un article -ur Le Alobilier, 
dans La Femme beige, 1926, 75-84. 

Les scenes gravees sur le vase do Basta et decouverte.s par C. C. Edg.vr, Ann. Sere., 1925 -.unt 
analysees dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 57. Le catalogue de Mrs. C. E.xxsoJi \\'ili,i.v.ms e.st I'objet do cunipte- 
rendits par F. W. von Bissing, dans Berliner Philol. Wochcnschrift, xlvi, 1926, 97-100, et A. Eriian, dans 
D. Liter., XLVI, 1926, no. 23. Signalons uii article ile vulgarisation de Teodoro X. Miciano, Joyeria 
Egipcia, dans Rivista del Ateneo, iii, 1926, 93-8, tig. 

L. i'RANCHET, La ceraraique du desert lihyque, dans Recue scientifique illustree, 1926, 721-5, ill., discute 
I’origine egyptienne possible des ceramiques du uord de TAfrique. H. Frankfort, Studies in Early 
Pottery, e.st analyse* par Burrows dan.s Jovrn. Royal As'a.itic Soc., 1926, 319-21. 

The Antiquarian (pmrterhj, 1926, 178, pi. xvii, reproduit les Wine Jars of the L,ady Em-Keteheni de 
I’anoienne collection MacGregor. 

Mk D. VAN 4VYNGAARDEN tAudie des vases egyptiens en pierre : Qud egyptisch steenen caaticerk, dans 
Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen uits Rijksmuseum can Oudheden te Leiden, vir, 1920, pp. Ixxix-lxxxiv, fio-. 

Divers. Roberto Almegia, E Opera degli italiani per la conoseenza dell' Eg itto e per il suo risorginierUo 
civile ed econonxico, l, Rome, 1926, contient des chapitres interes.sants d’E. BRECCi.t, EEsplorazione archeo- 
logica, d’A. Calderini, Oli studi papnrologici et do G. Farina, Le Lndagini sulle lingue e sulla storia 
del antico Egitto. Coinpte-rendus dans Bulletin de la Societe areheologique d Ale.ca ndric, xxil, 1926 

Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 23 



178 


JEAN CAPAET 


247-8; C. Cesari, dans Ricista Coloniale, xxi, 1926, 394; A. Calderixi, dans Aeg^ptus, vli, 1926. 
321-2. 

Les petits livres d’E. C. Baxck, Aegyptische Kxdtur et Aegyptische Lehen, Leipzig, 1926, dont I’idee 
est si bonne, sont defigiires par une illustration qui date d'il y a trois quarts de sitjcle. 

A. M. Blackmax, Das Hundurt-Torige Tlmbeii. Hinter deti Fylonen der Pharaonen. Uebersetzt von 
G. Rodeh, Leipzig, 1926, est annonce par K. Axthes dans Litvr. Wrjrhenschrift, ii, 1926, 521. 

Dans Ev. Breccia, Monameuts de VEgypte grten-romaiiie puhhe's par la Socie'te xtrcheulogique d’Ale.r- 
andrie, I, 1926, on trouvera plu,sieurs nionurnent.s pharaoniques important.s decouverts a Canope. 

Le livre d’E. A. IV. Budge, The Dxrellers on the Nile, a paru en une nouvelle edition, Londros, 1926, 
XXXII, 326 pp. aveo 11 pi. et iig. 

G. D.vrb.ssy publie Le voyage tV inspection de M. Grebant en 1SS9 dans Ann. Serv., xxvi, 1926, 1-22. 

R. Hallo, Ueher einige Antikenfahchnngen und Naehhildiiagen ini Cussder Mi'senin, dans Repertoriuin 
fur Kunstvjissejischaft, XLVii, 1926, 265-83, s’occui)0 aussi d’objets egj’ptien.s. 

L’ouvrage important de Flixders Petrie, Ancient Egyptian (Descriptive Sociology, 1925), est Polijet 
d’un compte-rendu de G. WL Elderkin, dans American Journal of Archaeology , xxx, 1926, 480-1. Les 
instruotives listes de litres publiees par le meme auteur dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 15-23 et 73-84, portent 
sur Professions and trades et Supplies and defence. 

M. 1V[erbrouck] a edite un album sur Thebes. La Qloire d un grand passe expliquee anx enfunts. 

Entin VAtlas zur altagyptischen Kidturgeschichte de W. IVreszixski est I’objet de compte-rendus de 
S. A. B. Mercer, dans Jovni. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 1926, 216 et 322, et do il. LOhr, daii.s Theolngische 
Literatarzeitung, Ll, 1926, no. 8. 

Biographies. 

G. Gabrieli, Per tn stona dell' Egittologia e seienze affini. Curteggio inedito de I. Rosellini e Ij. M. 
Cngarelli, epitomato ed illustrato da G. G. con i rittratti dei due egittologi, Rome, 1926, et G. Gabrieli 
et I. Guidi, Lettere egittologiche inedite di Champollion le Jeuae, dans Rendiconti d. Reale Accad. dei Lincei. 
Cla.sse di Seienze morali, 1926, 21-48, apportent de precieux documents pour I’histoire des debuts do 
I'dgyptologie. 

G. Be'nedite. Ch. Boreux, dans Lnrousm mensuel iUnstre, no. 232, juin 1920, 142-3; P. Jamot, dans 
Rerue archeologirpie, xxiv, 1926, 73-5 ; A. L., dan.s Beaux Arts, iv, 1926, 100 ; Art et Decoration, avril 1926 
Ghronique, 1 ; Bulletin de VArt ancien et rnoderne, no. 728, mai 1926, 147. 

L. Botdard. Xccrulogie par 0. Martin, dans Recue historique de droit fran^xds et Granger, janv. — ni.ars 
1926. 

Aaron Ember. P. R. Blake dans Journal Amencan Oriental Society, xlvi, 1926, 182-4. 

E. Naville. J. B. Chabot, d.iiis Compte-rendus de V Academie des Inscriptions, 1926, 246-9 ; R. D[us- 
saudJ, dans Syria, vir, 1926, 421; M. Bocle, dans E Anthropologic, xx.wi, 1926, 600; .indent Egypt, 
1926, 128. 

Valdernar Schmidt. M. Boule, dans E Anthropologie, xxxvi, 1926, 168 ; American Journal of Archaeo- 
logy, XXX, 1.926, 341. 

Georg Schireinfurth. J. B.all, Schiveinfurth and the cartography of Egypt, dans Bull. Soc. Royals de 
Geographic d’Egypte, xiv, 1926, 139-44; P. Bovier-L.vpierre, Schireinfurth et les sciences biologiques, 
Schweinfurth et la prehistoire, ibid., 145-52 et 153-60; R. Chodat, dans Le Globe, Lxv, 1926, 41; H. Detzxer, 
dans Geogr. Zeitschrift, xxxil, 1926, 281-3; H. Froidevaux, dans Larousse mensuel illustre, vii, 1926, 260; 
H. Gauthier, Schweinfurth et Varcheologie egyptienne, dans Bull, de la Sodete Royale de Geographic 
dEgypte, xiv, 1926, 129-33; S. H., dan.s >S''t(2un Notes and Records, viii, 1926, 243-5; W. F. Hume, The 
Contributions of Dr. Schweinfurth to the knowledge of Egyptian geology, dans Bulletin de la Sodete Royale 
de Gtographie dEgypte, xiv, 1926, 135-7 ; L. Kbiiier, Bibliographic des oucrages de G. Schweinfurth, 
ibid., 73-112; H. Munier, Notice biograpkique {lSoO-19-to), ibid., 65-72 et 2 portraits; A. Osborne, 
dans Bulletin de la Sode'te archeol. d’ Alexandrie, XXII, 1926, 240-4 ; S. ReinaCH, dans Revue Archeologique, 
xxill, 1926, 124. Reimpres.sion de G. Schweisfurth, Discours prononce uu Caire a la seance d’ inauguration, 
le .ijuin 1875, dans Bulletin de la Sodete Royale de Oeographie dEgypte, xiv, 1926, 113-27. 

Varia. 

Signalons les importants travaux de Mi.s.s S. W. Blackman sur Fethnograpliie de I’Egypte moderue ; 
The Karin and Karlneh, dans Journ. of the Royal Anthrop. Inst., LVI, 1926, 163-9, 1 fig. et pi. xiv ; 
A Lertihty rite in modern Egypt, dans Maji, xxvi, 1926, 113; Some social and religious Customs in Modern 



BIBLIOGKAPHY (1<)26): ANCIENT EGYPT 179 

Eijiipt, with i^pecial references to survirals front Ancient Tunes, dans Bulletin de In Societe' Royale de Geo- 
graphic d’Egypte, xiv, 1926, 41-6, 4 pis. Deux conipte-rendiis d’A. Kennett, Bedouin Justice, ont etc 
ecrits par D. X., dans Sudan Xotes and Records, ix, 1926, 140-2 et Th. Arnold, dans Asiatic Review, 
XXII, 1926, 71. 

Voici de la litterature sur I'Egypte ancienne: Leon Barry, La Derniere Epoiisee d’Arnmon, Paris, 1926; 
A. E. Phillpots, Akhnato/i. A Play, Londres, 1926 ; (.1. de la Fouch.yrdiere, A la recherche d’un dien, 
Paris, 1926 ; L. Lamprey a eerit sous deux litres difi'A-eiits une jnlie liistnire d’enfants : Children of Ancient 
Egypt et Long Ago in Egypt, Bo.ston, 1926; E. Raivlixs, The hidden treasures of Egypt: a Roniance, Xew 
Fork, 1926. Une poesie sur un mastaba; M. T. Ritter, ^Vithin the 'niastaha of an Egyptian Princess, dans 
Art and Archaeology, xxil, 1926, 19.3. 

D’autre.s romans: C. W. LeaDBEAter, Glimpses of Masonic History et The Hidden Life in Freemasonry, 
Adyar, Madras, 1926 ; E. M. Stewart, Syinbo/isni of the Gods of Egypt and the light they throw on Free- 
masonry, Londres, 1926. A noter: J. Gattefosse et C. Roux, Bibliographie de V Aflantide 'et des questions 
comne.res, Paris, 1926. 

.J’ai releve aussi : H. F. Lutz, The. Analysis of the Egyptian Mind, d.-ins Oriens. The Oriental Review, 
I, 1926, 19-21 : L. Keimer, Die Angst der Aegypter ror der ^Ynste, dans Hamburger Fremdenhlatt, 6 jam’. 
1926 ; A. H. Forster, Sidelights on the life of an Egyptian wording man in the days of Jesus of Xazaretk, 
dans Anglican Theol Reciew, 1926, 24-8. 

B. Michel, Le Folklore dans le Sihayat al Arab de Xowayri, encyclopedic arabe dv. XI V‘ si'ecle, recueille 
des legendes relatives a quelques anciens uiomiments, le.s pyr.imides ot les tcuiples dans Congris inter- 
national de Geographic, Le Cairo, 1925, iv, 1926, 239-42. 

Citons entin : Antiquitis et temips inodernes. A bord du Marictte pacha, daii.s Rcvoc de I’ Art, decembre 
1926, 1-16. 

La dc.stinee de toute Bibliographic est d’etre enimyeuse, et il est a craindre memo qu’olle le .soit dans 
la proportion oil elle vise a Stre complete. Je crains que celle-ci parai.sse presque un modelc du genre*. 
Si eependant le travail qu’elle m’a route pent dispenser d’autres de faire des recherches fastidieuses et 
souvent inutiles, je n’aurai pas perdu mou temp.s. 

Me permettra-t-on en terminant d’attirer une fois encore 1 attention sur \», Fondation Egyptologique 
Reinc Elisabeth dont la Chronique d’Egypte est le Bulletin periodique (5 numeros ont parn) ? Nous nous 
eftbr^ons de reunir tout co qui se publie sur l’£gypte, depuis I’cpoque paleolithique jusqu’ii I’epoque arabe 
(celle-ci exeluo). Nous demandons instainment aux auteurs de nous envoyer toutes leurs publications, soit 
a titre d’hommage, soit centre paiement des la reception, En repondant u mon appel, ils aideront eu 
m&me temps a la redaction de la Bibliographie du Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. L’adresso de la 
Fondation Egyptologique est ; Musees Royaux du Ciiiquantenaire a Bruxelles. 

Jean Capart. 

* .Je tiens a marquer les services rendus a eette bibliogi’aphie par VOrientalistische Literaturzeitung, dont 
les depouillements de revues sont eminemment preeieux. Le travail de preparation sur fiehes est I’ceuvre de 
Mr. G. Bovy, biblioth^caire de la Fondation Egyptologique Eeine Elisabeth. 


23—2 



180 


NOTES AND NEWS 


Although no excavation is being carried on this winter at Tell el-‘Amarnah, the work 
on the temple of Seti I at Abydos continues. Miss Calverley has proved an able draughts- 
woman, and her copies of the reliefs and inscriptions are regarded by those who have seen 
them as highly satisfactory. She has gone to Abydos in order to compare the copies made 
in this country with the original scenes, and also, with the help of Dr. Heathcote, to take 
further photographs which were found necessary to complete the series. Dr. Gardiner- 
visited the camp at Abydos early this year and reported most favourably upon the 
progress of this important undertaking. The Society is greatly indebted to Dr. Heathcote 
for devoting part of his vacation to the work. 

Lack of funds is seriously hampering the activities of the Society, and, unless sub- 
stantial donations are forthcoming, its publications, as well as its excavations, will have 
to be considerably curtailed. 

The lectures of the series announced in our last number have all been well attended, 
and our thanks are due to the Council of the Royal Society for the use of the Lecture- 
Room. One change was made in the list : Mr. Norman H. Baynes asked to be allowed 
to withdraw his lecture owing to considerable pressure of work, and Mr. Bell therefore 
kindly consented to lecture in his place on St. Athanasius ; he gave an exhaustive 
account of the life and influence of the saint, introducing several new facts concerning 
him recently discovered in a papyrus in the British Museum. 

Although it is impossible to publish these lectures in extenso, some of the more 
important of the newly discovered facts will be published from time to time in the form 
of short articles in the Journal. Thus points from the lectures given by Dr. Hall, Mr. 
Glanville and Dr. Frankfort are expected to appear in due course. 

The Society is concentrating on publications this year, since the interruption of the 
excavation work provides an opportunity for completing various tasks which have fallen 
into arrear. The Newton Memorial volume. The Mural Paintings of Tell el-'Amarnah, 
is in active preparation, and if the various contributors send in their manuscript as 
promised it ought to be ready by the autumn. Messrs. Emery Walker have already 
finished some of the magnificent coloured plates which will form an outstanding feature 
of the volume. A subscription list has been opened at the offlce, the cost before publica- 
tion being £3. 'ds. Od.; after publication it will be increased to £4. 4s. Od. 

The Cenotaph of Seti I (Osireion) will be a substantial and important addition to the 
series of excavation memoirs. Besides the treatment of the architectural features, and 
of the much discussed purpose of the building, it is mainly the preparation of the 
numerous and extensive texts which makes the pubhcation of this monument such a 
laborious task. Dr. Frankfort hopes, however, to have the work ready in manuscript 
before he leaves for Tell el-‘Amarnah next autumn, so that the volume should be in the 
hands of subscribers in 1929. 



NOTES AND NEWS 


181 


The results of the cemetery work at Abydos. carried out as a secondary task during 
the winter of 1925-26, are ready for publication in the Journal in two or three instalments. 
Dr. Frankfort is also working up the results of last season's work at El-‘Amarnah, but 
this will not be published until the remainder of the northern portion of the site has 
been excavated, so that it may appear as a whole. The final report on the North Palace 
will be included in this volume, which will, presumably, form the third part of the t'dy 
of Akhenaten, Professor Griffith’s work at El-’Ainarnah forming Part ii. Thus it will be 
seen that this vear promises to be productive, although no excavations are being carried on. 

The Graeco-Roman Branch has just issued Ox/jrh/jncJius Pap/jri XVII, an important 
volume and well up to the standard of this invaluable series. \ olume i of Mr. J. G. 
Tait's Ostraca, which includes all those of the Ptolemaic period in the Bodleian Library 
and several other collections, is now passing through the press. Volume ii will contain 
those of the Roman and Byzantine period and the indices. It is, however, expected 
that between the publication of these two volumes the Society will bring out a volume 
prepared by Mr. Johnson and Professor Hunt, containing the important Theocritus 
papyrus found by the former, and some smaller fragments. 

Egyptologists will learn with deep regret the death of Ernesto Schiaparelli, which 
took place, after a short illness, on February 14th. Schiaparelli, son of the historian 
Luigi, and cousin of the astronomer Giovanni, had been for many years past Director 
of the Egyptian Museum at Turin, and all those who have worked there will remember 
his kind and courteous manner, even during recent years when he was often visibly 
suffering. 

He was a pupil and follower of Maspero, to whose generation he belonged rather 
than to the vounger. His greatest contribution to his subject was his well-known Libro 
deifunerali. He was in charge of the Italian Expedition to Egypt of 1903-20 and worked 
at Kau, at Heliopolis and in the Valley of the Queens at Thebes, where he discovered 
the "untouched tomb of the engineer Kha the contents of which form the chief glory of 
the Turin Museum. During the last few years he had been engaged on the publication 
of these excavations, and two magnificent volumes had actually appeared, the second 
less than a year before his death. It is greatly to be hoped that the completion of the 
work from the notes and records which he has doubtless left behind will not be long 
delayed. 

Schiaparelli was not only an Egyptologist but a Senator of the National Parliament, 
a great lover of his country and advancer of her prestige, and, last but not least, one 
of the central figures in the Italian missionary world. As a colleague of his has well 
said: “Grande, dotto ed umile italiano. Questo fu lo Schiaparelli.” 

The new fount of hieroglyphic type devised by Dr. Alan Gardiner primarily for the 
printing of his Egyptian Grammar has already been referred to in these Notes. In order 
to facilitate its use Dr. Gardiner has now issued a catalogue of it imder the title Egyptian 
Hieroglyphic Printing Type. From matrices in the possession of Dr. Alan H. Gardiner. 
This book, printed and published by the Oxford University Press, is a very fine specimen 
of the printer’s art. The signs are arranged in five columns numbered from a to e 
according to size. These five sizes provide every size of sign which can possibly be 
needed in printing either in 18-point or in 12-point. In 18-point a is the full-sized sign, 
while c is used when the grouping demands a smaller form; an intermediate size useful 



182 


NOTES AND NEWS 


in certain combinations is provided by b. In 12-point c serves as the full size, e being 
the small size and d an intermediate. Not every sign is made in all five sizes, for there 
are many signs, mostly determinatives and word-signs, which are never grouped; these 
are made only in sizes a and c. 

A short Introduction explains the genesis of the fount and gives some most valuable 
hints as to its proper use, with which both authors and compositors ought to make 
themselves thoroughly acquainted. It is the duty of all who use the fount to use it in a 
manner worthy of the vast amount of thought and labour which Dr. Gardiner himself and 
his collaborators have devoted to its production. 

Supplements to the Catalogue will be published from time to time to cover the 
additions which it is intended to make to the fount. 


The volume of Essays iv Aegaean Archaeology presented to Sir Arthur Evans in 
honour of his 75th birthday contains three articles closely relating to Egypt. Keftin. and 
A prcdynustic Egyptian Double-axe by H. E. Hall, and The Egyptian Writing-board B.M. 
5647, bearing Kcftiu mimes by T. E. Peet. In his article on Keftiu, Dr. Hall, while not 
denying ‘'the possibility of the existence of 'Syro-Keftians in Cilicia, which may have 
been included in the term Keftiu (=Kaphtor),” maintains that '’it is surely just as 
possible that all these Keftian representations of the fifteenth century b.c.,.. .are, whether 
good or bad, pictures of iCnoan Cretans and not of hypothetical Cilician semi-Minoans, 
and that Keftiu means then, and had for a thousand years meant, primarily Crete.” 

With regard to the curious phrase rendered tentatively “wine 

for merrymaking,” on the Keftiu writing-board, the recently published Relazione sui 
lavori della Missione Archeologica Italiana in Egitto, 1903-20, volume ii, by the late 
Professor Schiaparelli, records on p. 153 the finding of a large wine jar bearing in hieratic 
the following inscription: 





- I ^ I n I ' £1/ 


The determinative of fire here as against that of the sun on the writing-board is 
puzzling and certainly tells against the proposal to read hi as an incorrect writing of 
hriv, “day.” Possibly other occurrences of this phrase are known. The colleague who 
suggested taking the words in their literal sense, “wine which goes down nicely,” and 
regarding the fire determinative as indicative of the warmth thereby generated was 
perhaps not wholly flippant. Instead of ©, however, we might of course read ©, and 
interpret hi nfr as the name of a vineyard or town, though in this case it is not easy to 
explain the (]_ of the Turin example. 

Dr. Gardiner has pointed out that the partially erased text on the recto of the 
tablet is a version of Pap. Petrograd 1116 B, recto 9-12 (see Journal, i, 106). 


jVIr. Eobert Mond’s publication of the Theban tomb of Eamose, to which we referred 
in our last Notes and News, is now in active preparation. It has not been possible for 
Mr. Emery to work this winter in the tomb itself, for the Service des Antiquites is 
engaged in constructing a roof to protect the new portions of the tomb recently cleared 
by Mr. Mond. In consultation with Mr. de Garis Davies, however, a system of publication 
has been worked out which involves the principle of drawing over photographs, after the 
manner of the American work at Medinat Habu, rather than tracing direct from the 



NOTES AND NEWS 


183 


original walls. The difficulty of the method lies in the fact that, when a wall is so large 
that it must be photographed in several sections on separate plates, the prints are never 
found to fit perfectly at the edges, however careful the precautions taken to secure 
accurate registering and parallelism. Mr. Emery has been experimenting with a very 
ingenious device designed to overcome this difficulty. Instead of drawing in Indian ink 
on the actual photographic print, he makes a lantern slide, projects it on to a sheet of 
drawing paper pinned to the wall, and draws in pencil over the projected image. The 
advantage of this system is that any distortion in the negative can be rectified by placing 
the lantern slightly out of parallel with the sheet of paper. The drawings can, moreover, 
be made on whatever scale is desired, and there can be no doubt that even the most 
skilled draughtsman can produce a better result by drawing on a large scale and sub- 
sequently reducing than by drawing over a print at the actual size required. The results 
certainly form an admirable testimony to the efficiency of the method. They will of 
course be corrected in front of the original walls before being passed for press. 

Professor Kurt Sethe has published a second and improved edition of his Sigyptinche 
Lesestilche (Hinrichs, Leipzig) which originally appeared in 1924. All those who are 
engaged in the teaching of Egyptian will be glad that a new supply of this most useful 
book should be available. The texts which it contains are all of the Middle Kino'dom. 
and it is to be 'hoped that Professor Sethe will shortly make time to give us a series of 
New Kingdom texts equally well chosen. If he does, might we tentatively suggest that 
none but complete texts should be included. M^e realize that the appalling difficulties 
of parts of such Middle Kingdom texts as Prisse and The Peasant makes it inadvisable 
to insert them complete in a book mainly intended for learners. In the case of New 
Kingdom texts, which as a whole are less difficult, there is not the same excuse for 
omissions, and if one could rely on finding every text in its entirety the book would form 
a most invaluable place of rapid reference and would supjdy what is at present one of 
our most urgent needs. 

In this number appear two old friends in new dresses, the Bibliography of Ancient 
Egypt and the Bibliography of Graeco-Roman Egypt. The first is the work of Professor 
Jean Capart, who among his other qualities possesses that of a bibliographer of the first 
order. His work has been printed in the language in which he wrote it. The labour of 
not merely translating it but of giving it the somewhat different turn which it would 
require in English would be so immense that it ought to be undertaken only if it could 
be regarded as absolutely necessary. Since all those likely to make use of a bibliography 
of this kind obviously possess the necessary knowledge of French, the labour involved 
in the change could not possibly be justified. The Bibliography therefore appears in 
French, in which language we are convinced that it will prove not a whit less useful than 
in English. 

The Bibliography of Graeco-Roman Egypt, so long furnished by Mr. H. I. Bell 
unaided, comes this year from the hands of several contributors, all of whom we thank 
for their collaboration in a dull but very important task. Mr. Bell is kindly acting as 
editor of the whole. 

The Society’s library has received a copy of Harmsworth's Universal History, edited 
by J. A. Hammerton, in the illustration of which a certain number of the Society's 
photographs and colour drawings have been used. The names of the contributors to 
this work form a very remarkable list of scholars, and one may hope that the fact that 



184 


NOTES AND NEWS 


such men can be gathered as contributors to a popular work of this kind indicates not 
merely great initiative on the part of the editor but also a real desire on the part of the 
public to draw its knowledge from the best sources. The sales of the History might 
throw an interesting light on this. Immense pains have clearly been taken to produce a 
really scientific publication and its value is much increased by the almost extravagant 
scale of its illustration. 

Since the above Notes were first set up we have had to deplore the deaths of two 
Egyptologists, Mr. A. C. Mace and Mr. A. G. K. Hayter. We hope to print in our next 
number some record of the life and work of both. 

Dr. Hall sends the following note: In connexion with Mr. Winlock’s publication in 
the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, of the new Hatshepsut statues found 
by him, the colossal limestone portrait of the queen {op. cit. fig. 47), is of great interest, 
since, so far as can be judged from the photograph, it seems to bear out the contention 
of Dr. Howard Carter and Mr. Newberry that the Tuthmosid head in the British Museum 
(No. 986), published in the Journal, xiii, 133, is a portrait of Hatshepsut rather than 
Tuthmosis III. The likeness seems great. 

Dr. Hall writes: The stone of the British Museum head No. 986 was wrongly given 
in Journal, xiii, 134, as ‘'green basalt.’' It is in reality that characteristic Egyptian 
green ‘"slate,” a stone that has often been mistaken for basalt, and is actually. Sir 
Flinders Petrie thinks, of volcanic origin. He calls it ‘"a metamorphic volcanic mud, 
much like slate in composition but not in fracture” {Scarabs and Cylinders, p. 8). He 
names it “durite”; but as it was so often used to make heart-scarabs (a green stone 
being prescribed for this purpose), the name “kheprite” has been suggested for it 
[Journal, v, 75). 

Mr. P. E. Newberry sends us the following: The death occurred at Luxor on April 6th 
of Mohammed Bey Mohassib, the veteran dealer in antiquities who was known to, and 
esteemed by, all Egyptologists. During the summers that I lived at Luxor (1895 and 
1896) he was very often my guest, and he then told me much about his early career. 
Born in 1843, he started life as a donkey-boy, and among others whom he served in 
that capacity was Lady Duff Gordon, who taught him English. He then became an 
itinerant dealer in antiquities and it was the inadequately supervised excavations at 
Thebes and elsewhere that laid the foundations of his success as a merchant. In the 
early eighties of last century he opened his shop at Luxor, and through his hands have 
passed many of the most important Egyptian monuments that now enrich the museums 
of Europe and America. He was a man of fine character, generous, and beloved by all 
who knew him, especially by the poor of his native village. 

The Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, to which Egyptology already owes 
much and of which it hopes still more, has made a generous offer to the Society. The 
whole of the profits on sales in this country of the English translations of Professor 
Capart and Mile Werbrouck’s Thebes. The Glory of a Great Past, and of the “album” 
for children based on it (published by Allen and Unwin) are to be presented to the 
Society for its excavations at Tell el-‘Amarnah. It is hoped that readers of the Journal 
will do what they can to encourage the sale of these two books, for they will by this 
means be doing a service to the Society. A notice of Thebes will be found on p. 202 of 
this number. 



185 


NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 

\_Ei'ery effort is made to secure a rerteu\ or at least a notice, of erery serious u-ork sent fo us, so long as it 
lies within the scope of our Journal. The Editor cannot, howerer, yuarantee that any hook will be reviewed, 
for many of those who alone are capable of doing this work properly are already orrrburJened with it. 
.I book which is dejinitely unsuitajjle for review m our pages is returned to the publisher.^ 

Greek Papyri in the Library of Cornell Unirersity. By W. L. Westermanx and C. J. Kraemeb, Jr. 1926. 
x-\ + 287 pp. 810. 

One of the recent developments of Papyrology is the formation of considerable eollection.s of papyri at 
various centres in the United States. Prom time to time ,i few .specimens from these .icquisitions have 
appeared in periodicals, but no attempt had hitherto been made to edit them in bulk. Cornell now leads 
the way with a .substantial volume, which is assured of a hearty welcome. It compn.ses bb text-s, of which 
only one, a small fr.igment relating to mythology and perhaps a .school exerci.se, has any literary- preten- 
sion. Five are of the Ptolemaic period, two, if not three, of these l ielonging to the great Zenon .irehive ; the 
remainder are miscellaneous documents of the Roman age, mo.stly from the Arsiiioite nome. A.s might be 
expected, they conform generally to types more or less familiar ; but though none are of great imiiortance 
and one or two of the more attractive have been previously published, points of interest are by no means 
lacking. Thus Xos. 19-20 are useful additions to the extant land-returns of the IJiocletiau period, and 
Xo. 24, a list of absconding defaulters from whom poll-tax and dyke-t,ix were due, incidentally disposes of 
the view that Roman Egypt supplies any analogy to the modern poor-rate. On the other hand, certain 
pieces are included which have but slender claim.s, e.specially when economy, as one learns witli some sur- 
prise from the preface, had to be considered. Owing to that necessity the volume was produced by the 
singular process of photographing type-written pages. The outcome is anything but soothing to the eye, 
and it is much to be hoped that this experiment, which moreover has not resulted in a low price, will -not 
be repeated. Its one advantage from the reader’.s point of view is that it porhap.s tends to multiply 
facsimiles, which however, if of no .special palaeographical interest, are less desirable than legible print. 
Economy might have been better studied by means of .some compression of the commentary and traiisln- 
tions, as well as of sundry omissions. With texts of greater importance awaiting publication, the exjiendi- 
ture of valuable time and space upon items like Xos. 27-8, 32, 02, 54 appears regrettable. 

Successful decipherment is largely a matter of practice, and a rapid perception of what can or cannot 
be right is the product of ample experience. That the texts here presented should .idmit of improvement 
is therefore no more than natural. A number of corrections have been made by (I. Vitelli ,ind M. Xorsa 
in Studi italiani di Fil. Class, v. i, and may still be added to. For instance, in No. 11 the unread adjective 
in the middle of 1. 9 looks like appivys. In 17. 28, 30, 32 a is probably (wpiirepov), not the numeral, and 
1. 32 should accordingly run rjais tovtihv aSehepdis, (irporepor) 7-o0 w{aTpus) ( !) alrmv ; ill 1. 34 ]y is not dire- 
paiTTjdei'js but a remnant of a personal name, plrpco ktX. in 44. 8 is a statement of the particular measure 
used in the transaction concerned ; wpocrpffpuvpcva) is therefore certainly wrong, and nWys is more 
likely to conceal a personal name than to be connected with ryXis ; KaptVij in 1. 2 is of course for Xapiry. In 
4,0. 9 the reading adopted is, as oli.served by Vitelli, unsatisfactory ; perhaps iwep t5>]v xporaw rdv uwo 
would fit. Should TiTpaeppl^di) in 33. 6 be rerpadlpppra) ' Inconsistencies between text and commentary 
are occasionally observable. At 17. 17, for example, where K{v)ripia, i.'s read, a note .states that the first 
letter may be (3, but in that case the k should have been marked in the text as uncertain : no doubt the 
word is really j3yp{aTt), as in e.g. B.G.U. 667. 20. If, as rightly pointed out in the commentary, [..]giaKa 7 -ta 
in 29. 2 is evidently [o-aj/dacuna, why not make that restoration m the text and eliminate the note ? The 
editors do not seem always happy in their selection of points for comment, e.g. in No. 39 two lines are 
devoted to the everyday spellings cnrovblov and Karaytto, whereas in 26. .3 a (^cXa/oViys (not -arrys in papyri) 
of the second century a.d., and the form a-noXiKov in 29. 1, pass without comment; or one would be glad to 
know how the abbreviation resolved as (airov) in 17. 25, &c., is written. Indices are commendably full, 
following closely the lines of E.E.S. publications. Whether the insertion of date with all proper names was 
worth while is open to question. idpocpvXa^ is out of place among military terms. 


Joum. of Egypt. Arcli. XI v. 


Arthur S. Huxt. 

24 



186 


NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS 


Les Papyrus Bouriant. By Paul Coixart. Paris, 1926. 254 pp. 160 fr. 

Tlie Bouriant papyri are a small collection formed by U. Bouriant while director of the French Institute 
of Oriental Archaeology at Cairo. Excerpts from one of them, a school exercise-book containing verses of 
Menander, &o., were printed as long ago as 1898, and the texts of a few others have apjieared since then at 
intervals, but they are only now published collectively in a .systematic and handsomely produced volume. 

A few are literary. Of the novelties in this category the most valuable is Xo. 8, fragments from ,i 
treatise on dialects, with quotations from Sappho and Alcaeus fcf. Lobel’s edition of the latter, p. 75). 
Col. iv is fairly consecutive but not yet fully intelligible ; a fecsimile of it might with advantage have 
been included in the four excellent collotype plates. Restoration would also have been assi.sted by an 
approximate indication of the number of letters lost in the lacunae. No. 3, which consists of several 
columns from a Christian homily, gains considerably in interest through Wilcken’s recognition of it 
{Archil- VIII 304} as belonging to a codex from Achmim of which further portions are preserved in the 
Bibliotheque Nationale ; a piece of that MS. copied by Wilcken in 1887 follows immediately on Col. ii of 
the Bouriant papyrus. The two sets of fragments should now be brought together and studied afresh. 
Homiletic literature is further represented in Xo. 4, part of a 6th-century leaf in which the names of Paul 
and Theda occur among others. Of a small group of Ptolemaic documents, three letters from Pathyris of 
the year 88 b.c. had been previously published ; X'o. 9, as pointed out by Wilcken, ?.c., contains signatures 
to a will. Xos. 13-63 are miscellaneous documents of the Roman period, some very fragmentary (of 43-63 
descriptions only are printed), but several of much interest. The mo.st imposing is 42, a long roll inscribed 
on both sides with a survey-list drawn nj) by the comogramrnateus of an Arsinoite village m the year 167. 
Xumerous specimens of similar documents are to be found in other collections, but lack the comprehen.sive- 
ness of these 29 oolumn.s, which afford an insight into the local tenure and cultivation of laud in the 
middle of the second century a.d. comparable with that given by the Tebtuuis papyri three centuries 
earlier. The information to be derived from this important text has been skilfully drawn out in M. Collarfs 
elaborate commentary. The MaK( ) ovaia mentioned in 1. 82 and elsewhere is no doubt the domain of 
Maecenas, which is known to have been situated in the district under considei’ation ; for the dropjiing of 
the first iota cf. P. Ryland.s 207 introd. Several unsolved difficulties are presented by the two (.niening 
columns of the ver.so. In 11. 423 and 439 pu followed by a suspended tt must be pviT{apoi), not 7rvp(o)i, 
and pov in 11. 422 and 424 .should repre.sent .some similar epithet. v(l)o(v) in 1. 435 &o. is unconvincing : can 
it be To(C) ? Another welcome acquisition is 13, which .seems to be the first example of an agreement of 
partnership in the exploitation of a monopoly. Unfortunately it is in a poor state of preservation ; 
perhaps .some of the lacunae may yet be healed by further study. In 15, a series of abstracts of contracts, 
11. 44 f. refer to a contract of marriage, and should run rar fie Siacpopas airois yfva{pivys) {)(<opi(a>vTm ?) ott’ 
aWriXav, (iTroBoira) avTrj Trjv (jxpvtjv {cf.e.g. C. P.R. 27. 16) ; 1. 104 is presumably 7re[pi -tv(Ttpa;([t]fia. 

In 16, an analogous document, a few emendations are sugge.sted by the accompanying partial facsimile : 
1. 10 prjTpLKQV yaka (but the preceding verb is not clear), 13 7rp€O']/3(vr€p0a) avrov dfieX((^oC)...ra)r 7rpor(epor) 
fivj3\{io<j)vXaK<tiv) rereXieuri^K...), 14 irpOKfiipiviov) (dpovpay) 6/3', 18 ttiittiv f' pe'pos /cXi)(poa) ?, 16 rSiv 
yfyvl^pvaa’iap^rjKUTav) ’O^opvyx(<ov), and similarly yfyv{pvainapxiJK 0 >s) before rTea~rjp{(loipai) in 1. 18. Xos. 23 
and 25 are well preserved private lettens, the latter, in which a daughter announces her mother’s death, written 
from (Syrian ?) Apameia ; fie&' [ejaur^y in 1. 9=p€7-’ epaur^y and belongs to the protasis. In 23. 13 fVilcken 
seems right in querying the name Tda-pr; : perhaps ru (Ta)poiVa el pfj kt\. shoidd be read. A rather 

lengthy list of misprints is given on pp. 253-4, but i.s neither exhaustive nor itself quite irreproachable. 

Arthur S. Huxt. 


Ber heutige Stand der roniiicken Rechtswissenschaft. By Professor Leopold Wexger. Munich, 1927. 
viii-f 113 pp. 

This work is an expanded lecture, in which the free expression of personal points of view naturally 
pred<iminates over close argument. The tone i.s professorial without being dogmatic ; the lecturer is care- 
ful by references to literature to open the door to a critical appreciation of his teaching. These references 
do not profess to be complete, but as in aU the writer’s work they are abundant and well-chosen. 

Professor Wenger has so much more to hold together than all but very few' scholars that one feels that 
the duty of synthesis is specially incumbent on him, and at the same time that his .synthesis, which he has 
here (in outline; made publici iuris, is of special value to those whose range is more limited. He covers 



NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLIC.\TIONS 187 

with easy mastery an immense field, from prehistory to the most modern problems of ])olitics and juris- 
prudence, but the readers of this Journal will not peruse many pages of this lecture without being made 
aware or reminded, sometimes iu unexpected connections, of the significance of Egyptian studies. Certainly 
papyrological studies are here given their full value for world-history, though they are not the main theme 
of the discourse. But the chief purpose of the lecture is to produce a heightened .sense of the interaction 
of races, institutions, ideas, periods, and of the .significance of each detail for the whole, and to dwell in a 
short review on particular points would be a misrepresentation. One may be allowed, however, to call 
attention to the full and accurate summary of modern work and tendencies in the editing of the source.s 
and in the preparation of mechanical aids (indexes and the like i to their utili-sation (pp. 15 ff.). Of special 
interest to the Roman lawyer are the remarks on Digest criticism (interpolation question, Bervtus: 
pp. 23 tf.), with which should be compared the account of J. Stroux’s recent Siunimua ixs siimina iniuria 
(Teubner) given in a later passage (p>p. 102 ff.). 

F. DE ZUI.UET.V. 


Thu TohJi of Hut/, Viceroy or JVvhia in the reign of TvJC anhharnua. {No. 40.) {The Thehna Tombs Series.) 
By XiXA DE Garis Davies and Alan H. G.vrdinf.r. Publi.shed under the auspices of the Egypt 
Exploration Society, London, 1926. 

Egyptology will very shortly be faced with a problem in regard to the private tomb.s of Thebes. 
If they are all to be published in full their literature will form a wood which cannot be seen for the trees. 
The time is probably ripe now for the appointment of some kind of commission to decide which tombs 
are worth copying and piublishing in full, which are worth copying in jiart, and which are not worth 
copying at all. Such a commission might even make recommendations for the apiportionment of the work 
worth doing between the various .societies, institutions and pirivate individuals intcre.sted in this particular 
class of pniblication. 

In the meanwhile we welcome the fourth volume of the Thehnn Tombs Series, piartly because it deals 
with a tomb almost all of whose contents deserve pmblication, partly because it is the jiroduct of that 
combination which alone is competent to do such work, namely, a first-rate draughtsman w'orking with 
a first-rate pihilologist. 

The story of the deterioration of the puivatc tombs during the 19th century is a sad one, but the 
authors have done their best to repiair the lo.ss by making full use of such early documents as the Hay 
and AVilkinson MSS., the note-books of Xestor I'Hutc and Weidenbach'.s origin.rl drawings for Lepi.sius’ 
BenTcnidler. The tomb itself has a spiecial interest, for it is not only the most con.siderable and most 
tangible monument of the reign of Tutc ankhamun, but it also gives us some information, pierhaps little 
more than corroborative of what we already had, about the administration of Nubia under the Now 
Empire. What is more, it is a particularly fine specimen of Egypitian decor.itive art, the two tribute- 
■scene.s, that of the Asiatics and that of the Southerners, being admirable e.\amp>les of the Egyptian 
artist's ability to seize and render faithfully the national characteristics of surrounding nations. The 
Asiatic scene is also interesting historically. If we may believe Akhenaten, Syrian tribute was .still being 
received in his twelfth year, and here in the tomb of Huy TutGrnkhamun make.s a similar claim, which we 
cannot lightly dismis.s, though the tribute be piresented .strangely enough by a viceroy of Nubia, whose 
onlv title to pirc.side over this ceremony is the veiy indefinite one of “king’s env'oy to every land.” 

Professor Gardiner, who is responsible for the te.vt, has earned out hi.s task in the scholarly wav ivhich 
we have learned to expieot from him. Ho has revealed himself in the.se volumes not only as an admirable 
translator and commentator of difficult and defective texts, but also as an acute and painstaking interpn-eter 
of the scenes which the texts accompany. Particularly striking is his explanation of the pjosition occupiied 
by the various scenes and by the x’arious piai-ts of the .same scene. On pi. 29 there occurs what we now know 
to be an overstatement, and if wc draw attention to it here it i.s only as an interesting example of how the 
best may err when relying on negative evidence. It i.s .stated that in PI. XIX a certain Huv is seen 
holding a gold pector.il “the size of which has been ludicrously exaggerated.’’ When these words were 
written they were true within the limits of our cxpierience. Since then, however, the tomb of TutCankhamfin 
has piroduced a golil pectoral — not the hapipiiest exampile of the Egypitian designer's art — more than twelve 
inches in breadth, that is at least three times the size of any pirex'iously known to us. Consequentlv Huy’s 
artist was guilty of no exaggeration. 


24 2 



188 


NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


As for the drawing of the scenes, the name of Mrs. Davies is in itself a guarantee that they are 
of superlative merit. There are five excellent coloured plates, of which the finest is PI. XXVIII, “ The 
Homage of the Nubian Princes. '' IVe are inclined to think that this is the best piece of colour reproduction 
from an Egyptian tomb which has yet appeared. Both Mrs. Davies herself and the makers of the plate 
are to be congratulated on the result. 

One suggestion in conclusion. Among plates nearly all of which are double it is difficult to turn 
quickly to any particular plate desired, because the alternate blank pages give one no clue as to one’s 
whereabouts. Thi.s difficulty could be very simply avoided by printing the number of each plate not only 
on the front but on the back, in such a way that it appeared at the top right-hand corner of the blank 
page preceding the plate. We believe that this is not at all a costly operation, and we know by experience 
that it makes reference to isolated plates five or six times as rapid. 

T. Ekic Peet. 


Ancient Egyptian Matcrio.ls. By A. Lucas. London : Edward Arnold and Co., IhSfi. 

Ancient Egyptboi Mchillvrgy. By H. G.vrlaxd and C. 0. Baxnister. London: Charles Griffin and 

(V, 19i7. 

I’hese two books are both written by specialists in exact sciences who have had exceptional opportunities 
of studying their re.spoctive subjects in relation to Egyptology. Consequently they both have a great deal 
of invaluable information to offer the Egyptologist of a kind which is normally beyond his reach. 
Archaeologi.'ts are realising more and more the nece.s.sity of calling in outside .specialists, and no two 
experts could in their own line.s be better oho.sen than Mr. Lucas and the late Major Garland. But both 
the books under review are marred by an underlying attitude to the reader which is thoroughly unscientific. 

It seems that Mr. Lucas is so impressed with the inexactness of archaeology that he feels that he can 
talk down to us ; that he can in short lapse from the exact standards of his own science to the loose ones 
of ours. Only on such a .supposition can we explain the extraordinary ineft’ectiiality of his references 
throughout this book. Although there are references on about three-quarters of the pages of the text, 
frequently to several auth(.>rs and their works, in no single case, so far as I am able to discover, is the page 
indicated; and thi.s in sjiite of the fact that the majority of the references are to isolated objects which in 
many oases one could not possibly expect to find in the index of the volume cited. On p. 142 there 
is a reference to an article by Noel Heaton in the Papers of the Society of Mural Decorators and Painters 
in Tempera. Not only is the title of the article omitted, but there is no mention of the fact that this 
article occurs in the soeoiid of the two volumes published — at some interval between one another. The 
liearl of this collection of almost usele.ss references occurs, appropriately enough, on a page headed 
“shells” (213). The passage re.ids : “A few objects of tortoi.se.shell.. .among which may be mentioned... 
a .soundboard for a small harp,” to which is appended a note of three words : “ British Museum Guide ” ! 
Which guide ? 

The principle underlying this grave fault has a deeper significance and has led to a vital misconception 
of the proper treatment of the subject. Mr. Lucas i.s entirely justified in accusing Egyptologists of repeating 
initial mistakes made in the past “without inquiry or verification” until, from constant repetition they 
have become accepted without que.stion (pp. iv and v) ; and we cannot be too grateful for the many 
in.stance.s in which he has pointed out the.se errors and corrected them, both in journals and in the present 
volume. But this does not mean that he may ignore the work of archaeologists, as he confesses that he 
does (pp. iii, iv), in the matter of translations from the ancient records. If authorities differ in their 
translations, then at least he should consider the merits of the various sides in the light of his own 
investigations. Nor is it clear why “the ancient records” can “at best only have been second-hand 
originally " (p. iv), unless he is referring to classical writers solely ; in which case his neglect of the actual 
Egyptian record is the more downright. Nor, again, has he the right, when dealing with precious stones, 
to say that although some of the names have been translated, the possibility of mistranslation excuses the 
author fi-om taking any notice of this sort of information (p. 157). If in a matter which must clearly 
contain some element of conjecture no attempt is made to harmonise or sift divergent opinions, how can 
archaeologists be expected to pay due respect to the author when he impugns a fellow-chemist. Dr. Reutter, 
on account of such a materialistic investigation as the analysis of resins (pp. 118-19) ? 

In short it is usele.ss for Egyptologists to call in scientific experts or for these experts to preach to 
Egyptologists, unless the two are prepared to work together— the more literally so the better. And the 



NOTICES OF REGENT PUBLICATIONS 189 

chief objection to Mr. Lucas’ book is that, because he has refii.sed to take the archaeologist into his 
confidence he has failed to do ju.stice to many of the subjects which he discusses. Xot only is the scientific 
value of what he has to say frequently invalidated by the incomplete nature of his references, but the book 
itself is far too small for the scope envisaged by him. Our chief hope is that the present volume is 
a sketch for a much bigger book — prefer.tbly to be written in collaboration with an Egyptologist — which is 
to follow. UnforLinately this is not likely to happen, as in sj)ite of its faults. Ancient Egyptian Materials 
is itself too useful to be neglected by any Egyptologist, and will thus le.sscn the demand for a better book. 

Mr. Lucas’ frequent correction of traditional errors has been noted above. In .some cases these have 
already been dealt with by him elsewhere — e.g., the nature of Egyptian iilaster: of the stone used for the 
Great Pyramid; of materials used in iiuimmitication with special reference to the absence of bitumen. His 
remarks on the distinctions in stones i^the nomcncl.iture of which would appear to hold a dift'ereiit “ble.sscd 
word ” for every archaeologist) arc very .salutary, though clearly the be.st description will not enable the 
layman to acquire proficiency in identifying different kinds without considerable practical experience of 
the stones. Mr. Lucas shows frequeiith" that objects and materials which have regularly been called 
foreign by archaeologists, are almost certainly home products, or at least that there is no reason to look 
outside Egypt for their origin. An important example in the latter connection is the “fat” in the wavy- 
handled jars of Xakadah, with obviousl}- far-reaching pos.sibilitics. His statements as to the possibility of 
hardening copper by boating alone, and his definite assertion 'in complete agreement with Garland) that 
there wa.s no secret process of hardening the metal Ijoyond the hammered stage, must be taken as final. 
On the other hand his view qi. 21o,i that coiipcr was first produced in Egypt is based on the misinformed 
statement that “in every other country copper appears at a later date.” Putting aside archaeological 
arguments for the origin of copper working outside Egypt, which at least demand a more careful ex.iuiination 
of the subject than Mr. Lucas has given it, the quotation above can liardly stand against the evidence from 
the first civilisation at Susa. Presumably Mr. Lucas himself will be le.s.s certain of his opinion after .seeing 
the amazing wealth of copper tools from the earliest graves (certainly before 3000 b.c.) excavated last 
sea.son by Mr. AVoolley at Ur. Clearly those graves represent a civilisation which presupjxises a very 
considerable antecedent period of apprenticeship in copper- working, besides showing in their own copper 
contents a great superiority of technique over the contemporary cojiper remains from Egypt’, 

Similarly, through his neglect of Mesopotaniian evidence the author has been led to make a much too 
definite attribution of the invention of glaze (with le.ss definitely — as a rider — the origin of glass) to Egypt. 
Even were the lump of blue glass of about 240(’ ii.c found by Dr. Hall at Abu Shalirain and now in the 
British Museum the only ei’ideiice for early glass work in Mesopotamia it could not be so easily dismissed 
as is implied by ilr. Lucas’ assertion. 

A few smaller points are worth noting. P. 21, the implication that the Egyptians did not knov: of lime- 
burning till the Eomans brought it from Europe is probably misleading, since the Cretans were burning 
Ume for their frescoes at Knossos at the period of greatest contact between Crete and Egypt. Indeed 
there is the evidence of the painted pavements from Amenophis Ill’s palace at Medinat Habu and from 
those of Akhenaten at Tell el-‘Amarnah, to show that the Egyptians had to .some extent acquired the 

’ Since this review was written Mr. Lucas ha- published {■fminnil, xiii, 162 if.) a somewhat longer plea for the 
discovery of copper in Ancient Egypt, but he does not there give us any reason to modify our criticism. It is not 
generally denied that copper-working existed in Egyptian territory during the Middle and Old Kingdoms and even 
earlier, but it is regrettable that Mr. Lucas should dispute the opinions of such a well-known expert on copper- 
mining as Mr. T. A. Eickard in order to prove ins view tliat Egypt supplied all her own copper up to the Twelfth 
Dynasty. Mr. Lucas dissociates himself fronr the “ diffusionist ” theory of a “single centre for the knowledge of 
copper.” It is not clear, however, that he is not prepared to demand just such a primary position tor Egypt, for his 
statement " but all stages of evolution from the simplest [copper] objects to the more complex have been found in 
proper sequence, and unless it can be clearly proved that copper was known outside Egypt at a period anterior to 
its use in Egypt, which has not yet been done, it is only reasonable to credit the Egyptians witli the discoverv ” 
certainly implies that, icere there proof that copper was known outside Egypt at a period anterior to its use in 
Egypt, we should have to conclude that the Egyptians (in spite of their sequence of copper objects) did acquire 
copper-working from outside. This seems to bring us back to the “diffusionist” theory. Whether that is a ri^ht 
view in this particular instance is perhaps a matter of opinion, but the most recent copper finds from Mesopotamia 
are matters of very bulky fact. For some persons they may not preclude the possibility of an independent discovery 
of copper by the Egyptians (though certainly precluding the discovery of copper by them) ; but if we are to take 
Mr. Lucas at his word, he at least will now have to admit that Egypt boiTowed the art of copper-working from 
abroad. 



190 


NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS 


technique of true fresco at this time — clearly from Crete. P. 50, not all red glass, at all events during the 
Eighteenth Dynasty, is of the cuprous oxide type which show.s green breaks when corroded. P. 90, the red 
discoloration of gold was not always, a,s is here implied, accidental owing to impurities in the metal, 
though doubtles.s this was the origin of the discovery of the mean.s to produce this red tint. Ulr. Harold 
Ridge and later Ur. Alexander Scott have pointed out that the colour of the red sequins in a robe of 
Tut<'ankhaniiin was intentional, being cau.sed by the admixture of a small amount of iron with the gold. 
P. 130, also sriine of the cosmetic found in Tutfankhamun’s Tomb has been analysed bj' Mr. Chaston 
Chapman and Dr. H. J. Plenderleith (Jonni. of the Ckem, Soc., Oct. 1926). Pp. 137, 138, in the New 
Kingdom pink colour was regularly obtained by simply mixing red and white. Pp. 141, 142, there is 
a cylinder seal in the British Museum of blue frit of the Sixth Dynasty. P. 149, the comparatively late 
date of the introduction of the domestic fowl into Egypt is surely no ai'gument for deining the possibility 
(for which there seems to be some material evidence) of the use of albumen as a medium in painting ! 
The duck wa.s the Egyptians’ “domestic fowl,” .ind they' doubtless counted at least one or two good laying 
strains among the various breeds. As a producer of albumen the “ Egyptian Runner ” could probably hold 
her own with the “ Buff Orpington.” 

3Iajor H. Garland was, before the war. Superintendent of Laboratories at the Citadel, Cairo, where he 

h. id “exceptional oppurtuuitie.s for the collection and thorough examination of ancient metal specimens 
not ea.sily obtained ly other metallurgists.” After distinguished .service in Arabia during the war, ho was 
with Lord Allenby at the Residency in Cairo, as Director of the Arab Bureau. In 1921 ill-hcalth 
compelled his return to England, where he died suddenly, six days after his arrival. 

This tragic incompleteness of hi.s life is painfully mirrored in the book under review. Major G.irland 
was at work on the manusci'ipt when he died, but it was still in such an unfinished state that the 
publi-.liors handed it over to Profc.s.sor Banni.ster, of the L’^niversity of Liverpool, to put in order. 

Pmfessor Bannister is a metallurgi.st, and evidently very ill acquainted with ancient history. It i.s 
.1 great pity that ho did not submit his proofs to the scrutiny of an Egyptologist before allowing the book 
to go to press. This would have saved it from “howlers” and ineptitudes which may well damn it 
outright for an archacologi.st who happens to open it at certain passages. “ Piupi ” for Pepi (passim), 
“Professor Flinders Petrie” (p. 6} and “Dr. Budge of the British Museum” (p. 86) are merely anachronistic ; 
to say that in the Eighteenth Dynasty “Asia was .subdued” I'p. 10), and to call the wife of Takeloth I 
"just pro-.Saitic” are inaccuracies; to de.scribo a bronze foot as engraved on each side with “the Ankle or 
symb.jl of life” may be the printer's error, but looks very much as if it might be the editor’s; but to 
confuse Syria and A.s.syria on the .same page, as he does on two occasions (pp. 15 and 5.')), is a real offence. 

It may he some palliation that the book is written primarily for metallurgists (though they also will be 
handicapped by the extraordinary lack of references, and their unhelpfulness where they occur, c.g. of the 
object “generally alluded to as the Brazier of Khety, and now in the Louvre,” we arc told “ ia the catalogue 
of the British Museum it is sjiokeu of, etc.”). Moreover the book is sufficiently intelligible to the layman — 
the important chajiter on the metallography of antique metals is highly technical but presents its results 
clearly — to be obviously of lirst-rate importance for the study of metallurgy. Nor on the other hand 
should the Egyptologist he put off by the superticial if glaring faults enumer.itcd above. 

The book contains .six chajitei-.s, of which II and III (“Bronze Industry of Ancient Egypt'’ and “Iron 
Age in Egypt.” respectively) are far the most important. The essential fiict to lie learnt from the former 

i. s that the cire perdae or waste wax jtrocess of ea.sting copper and bronze objects was in far greater use 
• ind Listed much longer than li.is generally been suppo.sed, and that “raising,” i.e. the “gradual shaping of 
.1 vessel by hanimering” I'as oppo.sed to roughly casting and then tinishiug off with the hammer) was very 
much less in use th.ni it is frequently .stated to have been. One of the details in the evidence adduced to 
prove these facts is peril, ips of more interest than the facts themselves, namely the use of iron struts 
to hold the core in place when easting by the above method. 

The.se iron struts go some way to secure our confidence in Major Garland's thesis put forward in the 
next cliapter — easily the most important for Egyptologists. His thesis is that the Iron Age began with 
the (Jld Kingdom in Egypt, that is about a millennium aud a half before it begins in Europe. In a long 
chapter he states his ease forcibly, with nothing but the short list of four or five iron specimens dated 
before the New Kingdom as material evidence — the .same list from which Lucas and Waiuwright before 
argued for a late arrival of the Iron Age in Egypt, more in keeping with the European date and the slightly 
more frequent occurrence of iron specimens in Egypt from the late New Kingdom down to Roman times. 



NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 191 

lYainwright implies {The Lubt/rinth, Ger-ph niv} M'lzghuveh, 17) that the smelting of iron is a more 
difficult process than the smelting of copper. Actually copper is “far more difficult to obtain from its 
ores” than iron (Garland, p. 85). But given the two metals, iron is the harder to work, particularly if the 
smith has not got handled hammers, as appears to hiive been the case with the ancient Egyptians, because 
it has to be worked hot. But this is a further 2 )oint in favour of Garland's view, for it lielias to .iccount for 
the one real difficulty in the way of accepting an early date for the Iron Age, i.p. the e.vtraordinary rarity 
of iron remains. Garland argues that the difficulty of working the met.il confined its iwe to ,i few and 
skilled craftsmen, as well as to those purjioses only which could not bo .served by' coyii'er or bronze. These 
practically amount to one thing — j)roviding the .stone-cutter’s chisel. But copper and in its turn bronze, 
hardened by beating, were sufficient for the ordinary stones, limestone, sandstone, alaba.ster, etc., and were 
used for this purpose even after iron i.s genei'ally considered to have been in regular use. Hei'ix the still 
rumpariiticidy rare orcurre/ice of iron reniain.i even after Ir’UOn.c. — a 2 (oint to which Egyiitologists have 
not alloweil due weight. Moreover the sinijilies of the inet.rl were ju’obably not abundant. And finally, iron 
rusts and disintegrates much faster than, e.g., cojuier. 

This ijo.stulating of an early Iron Age in Egyjit is no mere academic challenge. To the metallurgist it 
i.s the least difficult solution of a jjroblem of which archaeologists have all been aware for some time ; to 
exjilaiu how the ancient Egyjjtians were able from the Thii’d Dynasty onwards to incise the hardest stones 
they knew with clear-cut hieroglyphs, with airparently no harder metal th.in c(jiiper. 

IVith a view to its solution Mr. Lucas reminds us of the following iioints (Aneient Egggtian Mat'o-iah, 
p. 82): 1. Tools of flint and other hard stone were in common use. 2. Abrasives were used. 3. The 
Egyirtian.s used other tools besides the chisel, p.g. drills and saws which could be fed with aliiMsives, 4. The 
infinite patience of the Egyptian worker. 

Take point 3 first. Major Garland shows that it i.s inconceivable that certain details, notably in the 
cutting of small hieroglypihs in granite “ with sides and bottoms jierfectly flat and corners sliarii,’’ were 
done by any tool but a chisel, though he would certainly admit in general an extended u.se of saws and 
drills. Now he has found (Lucas’ point 2) by e.xi.ieriment. that a chisel of the best copiior fed with emery 
is entirely ineffective again.st this stone. As to jioint 1, it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about 
flint, that its use as a chiml on hard .stone is quite impracticable because of the tendency of flint to flake ; 
and it would certainly not be possible to obtain a sufficiently fine edge on any other .stone of .sufficient 
hardness to cut granite, exoep)t with a still harder metal tool. On the other hand Mr. Lucas’ fourth jiuint 
is one to be stres.sed, and has scarcely been taken into account by Major G.u’land. The latter “ .strongly 
begs” us to try the cojipcr-emery method ourselves, .uid describes the results as “to say the lea.st, dis- 
heartening.” L'nles.s “disheartening’' is a eufflieinistn, it rather gives away the less conijirnmising jihrases 
of his iireviou.s paragraph. One can imagine few more di.sheartening thing.s than grinding out a large 
breccia jiot in those still earlier days when even he would not jiostulate the use of iron. 

Nevertheless, weighing both sides of the argument it seems to the iiresent writer that Garland has the 
better of it. And now fresh archaeological evidence is coming to his aid. Mr. Carter’s dagger from the 
tomb of Tutfankhamun caused a considerable .sensation when it wa.s jmblished. A less interesting find 
(but still an important addition to the list)' of about the s.ime jioriod was made by Professor Griffith at 
Tell el-‘Amarnah in 1924, when he discovered in a house a lumii of iron oxidi.sed on to a bronze axe-head. 
How much more to the point than both the.se objects are the considerable remains of an iron we.qion or 
tool, from one of the earliest tombs (before b.c. 3000) excavated by Mr.M oolley last .season at L"r, and recently 
on exhibition in the British Museum ? The chances of iron of that or later dates jiersisting in anything 
like recognisable form down to the present day, are far more remote in Mesoi>otamia than in Egyjit, and 
it is therefore useless to argue that this wa.s a unique sjiecimen. Iron rem.iiiis are just a.s rare in 
Mesojiotamia at a much later date — during the fourteenth centuiy b.c. — when there is amjile in.scrqitional 
evidence for it.s use — a date which incidentally is well antecedent to that commonly as^umed for the 
general use of iron in Egypt. 

There is not yet enough evidence to prove Major Garland’s contention, but it merits, if not [jro-s isional 
acceptance, at least the very careful consideration of Egyi)tologi.sts. For this cluqjter on the Iron Age, if 
for no other, this book should be read. 

.8, B. K. Gl.vnville. 

' Dr. Hall tells me that there is a pair of iron hnieelets of the Eighteenth Dynasty in the collection of 
Mrs. .T. H. Piea, roughly worked with dogs’ heads. 



192 NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS 

Kings and Queens of Ancient Egypt. Portraits by Winxifred Bruntox. History by eminent Egyptolo- 
gists. Foreword by Professor J. H. Breasted. London ; Hodder and Stoughton, pp. 163. 18 plates. 
In this delightful book Mrs. Brunton has publi.shed colour reproductions of her miniatures representing 
some of the rulers of Egypt. In the Foreword her work is announced as a contribution to history. This is 
hardly correct and to review this work in an Egyptological journal brings with it the same difficulties a.s 
the di.scussion in a historical journal of a literary biography, such as those by Andre Maurois or Emil 
Ludwig. The literary biography deals with its hero for his own sake, while history is only concerned with 
him in so for as he has influenced the course of events in his time. Portraits however are biographies 
condensed in one significant moment, pregnant of the pa.st which it explains and of the future which it 
foreshadows. Both portrait and biography therefore, once a.ssuming that proper use is made of all the 
available data in their conception, find their value <lef)endent on the power of representation, the con- 
vincingne.ss with which a particular subjective view on past life i.s rendered, the artistic qualities in short. 

In some eases the royal mummies, in others .statue.s, have been the starting point for the resuscitation 
of these kings and queens in Mrs. Brunton's mind ; and all the .subsidiary features, such as dress and 
ornaments, are given as truh’ as one may exjxict from an artist of .such high archaeological .standing. The 
rendering in a modern way of so many objects only known to u.s from Egyptian con\ entional drawings is 
often a revelation. But that the reconstruction of the appearance of these rulers is based on so much 
objective evidence does not do away with the fact that they are entirely subjective in e.ssentials. For, of 
C'Our.se, the attributes and the dead remain.s of a human being give but the smalle.st and least important 
elements which determine his bearing. Tims the powerful jiortrait of Seti I, whose mummy could be 
studied, is neither more nor less valuable than that of Ty, based on statues only, or than the dream-like 
vision of Khafra, frankly given as such ; for all three show the .same penetrating understanding. The wdtt)- 
portrait of Ramses II remains somewhat more at the surface ; and those of Akhonaten and Nefertiti do 
not do justice to the complicated and interesting psychology of their subjects, and we may w'ell hope that 
Mrs. Brunton will treat them again, using to the full the extensive material which Dhutmo.se’s workshop at 
Tell el-‘Amarnah has provided. 

Besides the pleasure they provide these portraits have a jiarticular value for an Egyptologist because 
they compel him to scrutinize anew his own ideas on these monarchs now that he is confronted with the 
irapres.sion they created on the highly sensitive mind of an artist able to render what appeared to the 
mind's eye. 

As to the text of this volume, it i.s obvious that it will be best either where it provides a word-picture 
permeated by the .same spirit as the portrait to which it refers (this is the case with Mr. Winlock’s 
charming treatment of Teti.sheri) or where it merely gives facts without attempts at literary biography. 
Professor Feet’s discu.ssion of the ‘Amarnah-rulers de.serve.s sjiecial notice as it contains original research, 
and is in fact the most up-to-date treatment of that important period. 

> H. Fraxkfort. 

The Credibility of Herodotus' Account of Egypt. By Wilhelm Spieselberg, translated from the German 
by A. M. Bl.vckmax. Oxford : B. Blackwell. 1927. Pp. 40, 2 plates, 5 figures in text. 

This little book is a translation of a lecture delivered by Professor Spiegelberg and published by Winter 
of Heidelberg in the series Orient iind Antike. The discussion is mainly confined to testing the credibility 
of the historical statements of Herodotus with regard to Egypt, since it is in this respect that his account 
has been mostly called in question. The circumstances of Herodotus’ tour in Egypt are reviewed, and the 
very probable conclusion reached that he never came into contact wdth the upper classes of the country, 
but that his informants were innkeepers, dragomans, and minor officials of the temples ; just the types in 
foct with whom the tourist in any land comes most into contact. On this supposition rests the whole of 
Spiegelberg’s argument, for his main the.sis is that the marvellous tales which are embodied in Herodotus’ 
history and which have earned for him so much disrepute as a romancer are just those folk-tales which 
were current in his time among the lower classes, to which his cicerones chiefly belonged. An apt com- 
parison is made with the extraordinary tales told by the modern dragoman to tourists in Egypt today. 

Herodotus is thus acquitted of the charge of deliberate lying, but one must admit that by the insertion 
of such stories in a serious work he shows a lack of the critical faculty which is in marked contrast to 
the acuteness of his observation in other matters. Nevertheless, as Spiegelberg points out, his very cre- 
dulity has enshrined for us folk-tales which would otherwise have been lost, and thus enables us to catch 
something of the spirit of the Egjqit of the fifth century B.c. 



NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS 


193 


This lecture is to be recommended to all, Egyptologists and others, who are interested in the classical 
accounts of the Ancient East, and Dr. Blackman has done a gi’eat service in rendering Spiegelberg's paper 
available to those to whom German is either an obstruction or a stumbling-block. The translator’s foot- 
notes are of value in supplementing the text at certain points. 

E. 0. Faulkner. 

Etudes d’egyptologie : Bases, me'thndes et resultnts de la ehrdHologie vgyptieaue. Par Eay.vidnd Weill. 
Paris ; P. Geuthner. 1926. Pp. 216. 

M. Weill begins this book with a brief account of the .systems of Egv’ptiau chronology current prior 
to Meyer’s exjwsition of the Sothic method of date-determination in 1904, and describes the steps which 
led up to MeyePs work. He re-states the grounds on which the Sothic system is based and submits it to a 
fresh examination. For this system to have any value for fixing Egyptian chronohpgy, it must be first 
demonstrated that the slow revolution of the Egyptian civil year on the fixed Sothic year pursued its 
course undisturbed throughout the jieriod with which chronologists arc concerned, and a chapter is devoted 
to discussing this point, the conclusion reached l)oing that there was no adjustment of the two calendars 
within the dynastic period. The date for the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty given by the 
astronomical calculations is sufficiently in accord with the historical evidence to .show that there was no 
interference with the calendar as far back as that date, and .ilthough there is no decisive evidence of non- 
adjustment during the Second Intermediate Period, the argument.s advanced by M. Weill against the 
possibility of adju-stment of the calendar are very weighty. 

A.s a result of his re-examination, the author accepts the Sothic chri>nology, and, in accordance with 
his views previously e.xpre.-ised elsewhere, adhere.s to the ‘‘short’' il.vting of Meyer. The corruption of the 
“ Manethonian ” figures for the Second Intermediate Period is demonstrated by the remarkable arith- 
metical relations which exist between them, but M. Weill goes further, and attempts from those relations 
to establish the prototype of the dynastic figures of the Greek writers for the Thirteenth to Seventeenth 
Dynasties. The result at which he arrives allows 2o9 and 151 years for the Fifteenth and Seventeenth 
Dynasties respectively, and an unknown number of years for the Thirteenth, while the Fourteenth and 
Sixteenth drop out completely. Results, however, which are derived solely from the manipulation of 
figures are very precarious, and Weill himself take.s no account of these totals in the scheme of chronology. 
The Turin Papyrus of Kings is entirely ignored in the di.scussion of this period. 

With regard to the period prior to the Twelfth Dynasty, the auth"-)!- accepts Meyer’s datings, but with 
the reservation that they might perhaps be reducible by a century, the burden of dift'erence falling on the 
Seventh to Tenth Dynasties. Assuming a mean date of b.C. 2500 for the Sixth Dynasty, he iioints out 
that the dates of working expeditions to Sinai and Hammamat recorded during that period fall between 
February and July of the Gregorian calendar, whereas the normal season for exiioditions during the 
Middle Kingdom lay between January and April. Meill is inclined to bring the date of the Sixth Dynasty 
down a century to obtain agreement between the season.s, but the discrepancy mac be due simply to the 
paucity of records in the Old Kingdom, and as we lack the conclusive evidence of a Sothic date in the Old 
Kingdom it is safer to accept Meyer’s figures, which are ba.sed on the Turin Papyrus. Borchardt’s theory, 
which would date Jitenes in b.c. 4186, is rejected in toto, Meill denies Borchardt.s supposed high Kile 
datings in the early Annals, and equally rejects the latter’s view that the Palermo and the Cairo fragments 
come fi’om two different monuments. He is of opinion that they are portions of the .same document and 
supports his view by a comjiarative table of measurements. These measurement.s, though only approximate 
in the case of the Palermo stone, agree so closely that it is ditfieult to believe that the two fragments are 
not connected. 

F’rom the general historical chronology the author proceeds to the difficult questions of the month- 
names and their corresponding feasts. In discu-ssing the apparent discrepancy between the arrangement 
of the monthly feasts shown by the Ebers calendar and that shown in the later temple-calendars and 
the Graeco-Roman month-names he rejects the theory advanced by Gardiner and supported by Meyer, 
according to which there was a backward shift of all the feasts in the calendar to the extent of one month 
at a date subsequent to that of the Elters list, and adheres to that of Sethe, whose view is that the feast 
after which a given month was named was celebrated at the end of that month and culminated on the first 
day of the following month, so that for example the feast of the “ Birth of Ref ’ after which the twelfth 
month was named, was actually dated on 1st Thoth. The feast-calendars of the temples, as well as of the 
Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 25 



194 


NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS 


Ebers Papyrus, seem to have referred to a fixed (Sothic) year which was used for religious events alone, 
the corresponding months of the civil year being named in accordance with those of the religious Cirlendar. 

Just before the beginning of the Christian era, the Alexandrine calendar was introduced, with its 
Kew Year's Day on the 29th or 30th August (Julian), so that for a while there were three calendars in use 
at the same moment. This remarkable state of affairs renders it necessary to ascertain to which calendar 
a given date refers, and this point is illustrated in this book by a discussion of the dating of the feasts of 
Osiris, stated by Plutarch to have taken place in the month of Athyr. These feasts however are date<i in 
the temples on the 26th Khoiak, which in the Sothic calendar corresponds to the middle of Athyr in the 
Alexandrine calendar, so that it is clear to which systems the datings of the temples and of Plutarch 
respectively refer. On the other hand, the testimony’ of the Decree of Canopus and of the astronomer 
Geminos points to religious events having been dated in terms of the shifting civil y'ear. Weill gets over 
this difficulty by suggesting that this latter state of affairs held good only for certain places or pierhaps 
certain periods, and maintains that all the temple calendars which have survived refer to the Sothic vear. 

During the Roman period the winter solstice was marked by celebration.s on the 5th-6th January 
(Julian), which were Osirian in character, and it would seem as if a second Osirian cycle fell on that date. 
During this jieriod however the true solstice fell on 22nd December, and this also was marked by’ religious 
feasts. Weill points out that the January date was the true solsticial date at about the end of the Twelfth 
Dynasty, and suggests that it was at this time that the second Osirian cycle was instituted. He further 
shows that the 22nd December, the true solsticial date in the Roman period, coincided in the Alexandrine 
calendar with 26th Khoiak, the traditional day in the Sothic calendar of the Osiris mysteries. From this 
couicideiioe ho seeks to demonstrate that ultimately the mysteries were transferred from the old calendar 
to their traditional date in the new Alexandrine system, in order to agree with the solstice, suppoi’ting his 
view by passages from the Edfu calendar and the bilingual Rhind papyri which in hi.s opinion show that 
the old fe.rsts of 26th Khoiak also had a solsticial character. The appearances certainly are in favour of 
this supposition, but even though it may be correct for the late period, it is difficult to imagine that the 
O.siris feasts of Khoiak bore a solsticial character in the earlier times, for the further one goes back in 
history the further they become removed from the true solstice. As a matter of fact there is no direct 
evidence of the observance of the solstices at all prior to the Graeco-Roman period ; on p. 119 of this book 
Weill himself say.s : “ Mais le solstice, d'ete ou d’hiver, est .sans doute, de tons les phcnomfenes de Pannee 
solaire, celui dont le temps precis est le moins acces-sible h I’observation simple." It seems therefore im- 
probable that the 0.siris celebrations had a solsticial character until very late in history, and equally’ 
improbable that a special solsticial festival was inaugurated in the Twelfth or Thirteenth Dynasties. 

Although it is inevitable that some of the conclusions reached in this book will not attain universal 
acceptance, yet it performs a great service in bringing together into a convenient compass the most recent 
discussions of the Sothic chronology and the religious calendars, the chapters on the Alexandrine calendar 
and the late religious festivals being of gimt intere.st. There are however one or two matters which one 
would like to see treated at greater length. In the discussion of “ short ” ver-sus “ long ” chronology, for 
example, it w'ould not have been out of place for the author to have summarised briefly the results of his 
work on the Second Intermediate Period and to have shown how he proposes to fit the long .series of names 
in the Turin Papyrus into the chronology. The possibility of a serious error in the ancient observations of 
the heliacal risings of Sirius, suggested by Hall in the Cambridge Ancient History, is not discussed, and his 
equation of the "Menophres" of Theon with i{n-phty-r< Harnesses I is quite overlooked, Weill failing to 
find a satisfactory identification. Nevertheless, this is a most useful book and it should find a place on the 
shelves of all w’ho are concerned with the problems with which it treats. 

The type used in printing is clear, and misprints are few, but in the hieroglyphic passages quoted the 
□ /i is in nearly every case printed sideways a. This is a small matter which might well be rectified if a 
second edition of the book should be called for. 

R. O. Faulkneb. 

The Oxford Excavations in NvMa. By F. Ll. Griffith, M.A. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 
xi-xiv. Liverpool, 1924-7. ’ 

In 1924 we noticed in this Journal (x, 191-3) the detailed reports in course of publication by Professor 
Griffith of the excavations he conducted in Nubia during several consecutive seasons up to 1913. Our 
previous notice dealt with tho.se instalments of the report which appeared in the years 1921-3', and we 

' Liverpool Annals, viii-x. 



NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


195 


uow have to consider the further contributions to the report that have been published by Professor 
Griffith from that point to the end of 1927 h 

It is notable that in Lower Nubia compact groups of remains occur tliat belong to well-detiued periods, 
but without apparent link to what precedes or follows them. In the previous parts of Profe.ssor Griffith’s 
reports, the relatively abundant remains of the New Kingdom have been dealt with, hkowi.se the numerous 
but less important finds belonging to the Ethiopian Dynasties-, but thereafter there is a complete break 
until the age of the Ptolemies. The paucity or absence of remains leads Professor Griffith to think that 
Lower Nubia during these intervals passed out of cultivation and settled habitation'*. 

Since the Oxford Expedition ceased to operate in 1913, Dr. Eeisner has carried on extensive excavations 
at Napata and Meroe, and his results, combined with those previously obtained, have en.ibled him to 
outline a scheme of historical sequence based upon archaeological grounds, since jiraotically no help is to 
be obtained from written records. According to Dr. Eeisner, the Ethiopian kingdom of N.ipata was forced 
to cede, or at least to share, its supremacy with Meroe after the reign of Nastasen. Hence the Meroitic 
kingdom came into existence about 300 b.c'., but the ‘ Meroitic Period ’ is used by Professor Griffith as a 
convenient label for the time during which pagan Nubia with its survivals of Phai'aonic religion and art 
was under the influence of the contemporary Hellenistic culture of Greece and Eome, a period which is 
most marked in Lower Nubia from the end of the first century b.c. to the middle of the third centurv .v.d. 

The large cemetery of the Meroitic Period at Faras^ wa.s exiilored in the seasons 1910-12, and yielded 
a large crop of antiquities. The total number of graves excavated wa.s about 2000, but as many of these 
had been re-used, the actual number of burials was far larger. Owing to the alluvial nature of the soil, 
and to subsequent irrigation, the general condition of the graves was bad. Most of them were large 
enough only for a single interment, but some wore spacious chambers which probably had superstructures. 
A gradual evolution from simple cave-graves to rectangular brick-lined graves can be discerned. So far as 
can be ascertained from the damaged state of the human remains, it would appear that the bodies had not 
been bandaged or enclosed in cartonage as was usual during the Ptolemaic period in Egypt and elsewhere 
in Nubia From the numerous studs found it seems probable that the bodies were buried in garments, 
and a few fragments of coarse cloth, sometimes dyed red, were discovered**. It further seems improbable 
that mummification had been attempted, for had it been, it is likely that traces of the molten resin with which 
Ptolemaic mummies were treated would have survived even in a damij soil. By the complete absence of 
reference to such traces of I'esin in Professor Griffith's report, we can be .issured that none was found. 
Possibly the custom may already have been introduced of packing the corpse externally in salt which was 
the usual method of preservation in Coptic times when burial in garments was also in vogue. If this 
method had been employed at Faras, the dampness of the soil would have cau.sed the salt to deliquesce, 
and the body consequently to decay. The objects found in this burial ground are particularly interesting, 
and include a very fine series of decorated pottery 

Of the superstructures, most, if nut all, were of a inasiahii.-lik.e shape, with shrine.-'. All had been 
plundered, but the fragments recovered from the chambers suggest that the equipment must originally 
have been rich : in one of these chambers the gold jewellery, reproduced in colour, was found’. On the 
outskirts of the Faras cemetery were found some graves of the type stilled by Dr. Eeisner “X-group.” 
These are of a primitive character and contain contracted burials together with objects of poor quality and 
workmanship**. 

In addition to the funerary objects from the cemetery, Faras yielded an interesting series of other 
remains, the most notable being a fortified enclosure, and a series of antiquities from a palace*'*. There are 
also extensive remains of churches of the Christian period and these have well-preserved, though gene- 
rally fragmentary, wall-paintings, which may be compared with those found by tjuibell at Sakkdrah*-. A 
very interesting small church was excav'ated at the south-east end of the rnastaha-iielA of the Faras 
cemetery***. Near this church is a Christian burial-ground, in which the graves are vaults or rectangular 
chambers with siqierstructure.s. It is interesting to note that a regular featiu-e of these graves is the use 
of whitewash, both on the superstructure and sometimes within the vault. The association of *' whited 


* Licerpool AnnaU, xi-xiv. 

* Op. dt., XI, 141 If. 

•> Liverpool AnnaU, xii, 59. 

’ Op. cit., XII, 63 ff. and PI. xx. 

1* Op. dt., XIII, 50 ff., Pis. XXXI ff. 
*** Liverpool AnnaU, xiv, 57 ff. 


' Op. cit., \iii, IX. •* Op. dt., X, 119. 

•* Cf. Arch. Nurveij oj Xubia, Eeport for 1908-9, ii. Pis. xxfi. 

Op. dt., XI, Pis. xivff. 

*' Op. dt., XII, 69 ff. w Op. dt., XIII, 17 ff’. 

*** Quibell, E.rcavutions at Satppira 1906-7, Pis. xl ff. 


25 — 2 



196 


NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


sepulchres'' with Christian burial is very widespread and its use survived in this country almost within 
living memory’ . Other Christian burial-grounds were explored on the western side of Faras. 

On the high desert to the west of Faras is a small group of grottoes dating from the New Kingdom. 
One of these had been appropriated by a Christian anchorite who had converted the chamber into a 
decorated cell'C On the whitewashed wall is inscribed a series of texts in square compartments. These 
texts, which have been known since the time of Wilkinson^, have been copied by various modern scholars, 
and they include the Nicene Creed and the sayings of saints and holy men of the type known to us from 
the largo manuscript collections : in many cases the names and dates of the writers are appended. 
Another group of Christian sites was explored on both sides of the Nile in the neighbourhood of Paras'*. 

The arrangement of this extensive series of reports, which has now reached an aggregate of 509 pages 
and 316 plates is excellent, for the account of each locality worked and of the antiquities there discovered 
is preceded by a history of Lower Nubia during each successive period. By these historical introductions 
and by his frequent discussion of conclusions. Professor Griffith has rendered the report— which in other 
hands might have been no more than a tiresome catalogue of sites and finds — a most valuable and in- 
teresting account not only of the work done by the Oxford Expedition, but of its bearing upon the history 
and culture of the localities explored and of the periods that they represent. The collotype plates are 
excellent. 'Warren B. Dawson. 


.1 History of the Ancient Il'y/'W. Vol. i. The Orient and Greece. By il. Rostovtzeef. Translated from the 
Russian by J. D. Duff. 418 pp., lxxxix plate.s, 36 figs., 5 maps. Oxford Press, 1926. 

Orientalists must have turned to this book already with interest. AVritten by an eminent scholar 
whose special theme has led to considerable researches in the history of Egypt and Asia Minor in classical 
times, this book has much to recommend it. The outlook is broad, the style free from the worst vices of 
the “ scientific hi.story, the translation into English excellent, the illustrations better than in any current 
book of the kind. The most natural question to ask is. What purpose will it serve ? It originated as a 
course of lectures to Freshmen at a University; but the chief object was to collect Professor Rostovtzeff’s 
own fundamental views and ideas on ancient history. It is in fact an introduction to an immense subject, 
but is intended to give a single view, designed both for .students and the general reader ; it is devoid of the 
baggage of learning, but has a good bibliography. The book has, then, a unity of conceirtioii which will 
make it attractive reading. 

The first part of the work dealing with Oriental history down to Darius occupies about 1T5 pages, and 
is a fair and impartial summary. The present writer must confes.s to having found the section cramped ; 
the effort to put in all the known facts together with a broad view of the historical trend has led perhaps 
to a lack of that easy mastery noticeable when Professor Ro.stovtzeff turn.s to the classical world. There 
is little to be said about the statements contained. Time will doubtless bring the necessary corrections. 
Ill the next edition doubtless the Kharri or Khiu-ri (p. 67) will be associated with the Subaraeans on the 
score of language ; the use of mercenaries (p. 144) should be specially restricted to Egypt, for there is no 
proof of it ill Assyria, or in Babylonia, unless an isolated Greek adventurer be counted such ; Persian 
tolerance of Babylonian religion (p. 153) probably ceased shortly after the reign of Darius, for the wide- 
spread de.struction of Babylonian temples to be seen at Babylon, Borsippa, Ur, can only be dated to the 
Persian iieriod ; “ incantations against these spirits are ” not “ found in thousands among the cuneiform 
texts on Babylonian cylinders ’’ (p. 166) but on stone amulets and clay tablets — a point of archaeological 
importance; “Tiamat and his monstrous brood” (p. 167) may be a momentary lapse; I rather doubt the 
description of the divine symbols as “ ,sceptre.s ” (p. 169, fig. 14). In general, Professor Rostovtzeff takes a 
more generous view of ancient Oriental religion than some will be inclined to do; surely the words 
“ ...religion passes out of its primitive chaos to order aud system; and. ..its moral and spiritual aspect 
becomes, especially in the more enlightened classes, more and more predominant over the primitive terror 
a;id superstition born of terror ” constitute a .serious mis-statement of the facts 2 

May the book pass through many editions! No better fate can befall it than to fall into the hands of 
schoolboys in leisure hours ; we believe that it will give them something that books confined to classical 
hi.story cannot give, a wider outlook on the ancient world, and a keener appreciation of the true genius of 
the Greeks. Sidney Smith. 

’ J. E. Vaux, Church Folk-Lore, 2nd ed., London, 1902, pp. 162-3. 

“ I'oyv^iraphy oj Thebes, ly3-5, p. 498. 


^ Liverpool Annals, xrv, 81 ff. 
* Liverpool Annals, xrv, 97 ff. 



NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


197 


The Pmlmistg. By Hugo Grbssmann, H. \V. Robinson, T. H. Robinson, G. R. Driver, and 
A. M. Blackman. Edited with aii Introduction by D. C. Simpson. 0,xford University Press, 1926. 

The main interest to Egyptology of this group of essays consists in a section written by Dr. Blackman 
on the Psalms in the light of Egyptian research. This is a sober and dispassionate exposition of the facts 
concerning the reputed borrowings from Egyptian literature in the Hebrew Psalms, In view of the 
extravagant statements ivhich have l)eeu made on this subject, especially since the publication of the 
Amenope papyrus, Dr. Blackman’s calmly reasoned ess;iy is of very great value. Though not denying the 
direct influence of Egyptian works on Hebrew literature, he draws attention to the evidence of borrowing.s 
in the contrary direction, and attributes to Semitic origins that element in Egyptian religion of the New 
Empire which consists in the realization of the foct of sin and the need of fljrgivenes.s. It is thi.s, 
combined with the native cheerfulne.ss and love of nature of the Egyptian, which explains the religious 
outlook of the Eighteenth and following dynasties, “an outlook so closely resembling that of the Psalmists 
that it can almost be said that the Songs of Sion were being snng in a strange land Ijefore they were sung 
in Sion hei-self.” 

T. Eric Peet. 


The Fellahiii of Upper E'pjpt. By IVinifbed S. Blackman. London : Harrap, 1927. 

Miss Blackman’s work is of the highest interest and inuxirtancc to anthropologists at large and to 
Egyptologists in particular. Eor six years she has .spent several months annually among the jieasants of 
Upjier Egypt, endeavouring to rescue for science information about their methods of life and thought 
before these become completely deformed and destroyed by lieing forced into the vulgar and uniform 
mould of advancing civilization. 

One of the difticulties of the sciences of ethnology and anthropology is that their material consists to a 
large extent of evidence which is, to say the least of it, susi>ect. Much of our knowledge of the rites and 
customs of modern tribes rests on the report of traders, missionaries and travellers almost devoid of any 
equipment which might suit them for the task of collecting anthropological evidence. The two most 
essential requisites — apart from the more intimate personal qualities such as that aptly styled by 
Dr. Marett “a genius for hobnobbing” — are firstly a sound training in the principles of ,inthropology, and 
secondly an intimate knowledge of the language or language.s concerned. With the firet Miss Blackman 
equipped herself by a serious coui'se of study including the taking of a Diploma in Anthropology in the 
University of Oxford. That she also possesses the second is clear from a close examination of the List of 
Arabic Words at the end of her volume, where she reveals that .scrupulous accuracy and regard for small 
differences of sound and pronunciation which show that a language has been studied not only with care 
but with affection. <SV sic cmnes! Miss Blackman pos.sesses also an accidental advantage in that she has 
constantly at her immediate dispo.sition her brother’s erudition concerning the life, and especially the 
magic and religion, of Ancient Egypt, a store of which she ha.s not failed to make admirable u.se. 

The results of her rosearche.s as so far published consist in a number of articles in various journals and 
the present volume, which is intended as a popular work, and contains only a fraction of the material 
which she has already" accumulated. It is arranged in a readable manner under variou.s well chosen heads. 
It forms easy and pleasant reading lx>th to those who do not know Egypt and to those of us to whom 
the guttural bickerings of the Alexandrian dock-labourer as our ship nears the quay are among the 
most tuneful music in the world. 

From the Egyptological point of view the value of the book lies in the fact that so much of w'hat is at 
first inexplicable in Ancient Egypt receives light and explanation from this study of the modern customs 
and lore. This is a subject touched on in the last chapter, but one which is naturally capable of much 
greater development, which either Miss Blackman or her brother will no doubt eventually give it. Its full 
imixirtance can be best realized by those of us who have excavated an ancient Egyptian town site, such as 
that of Tell el-‘Amarnah, where many features which were obscure to us were at once intelligible to the 
native workmen, who are still using precisely the .same thing in their villages. 

The volume is well and fully illustrated. Most of the photographs are quite excellent ; a few only, 
e.g. Figs. 27, 36, 41, 127, and 148, are les.s good. A photograjiher friend who .saw the book ottered the 
opinion that in some oases the photographer, anxious to get the figure as large as pos.sible, had advanced 
too clo.se for the focus of the snapshot camera which must of necessity be used for such work, with conse- 
quent loss of sharpness to the image. He suggested that rather than do thio it would be better to secure a 



198 


NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS 


sharper if smaller image and have it enlarged to the required size. I give this opinion for what it i.s worth. 
To my less sophisticated eye, however, it looks as if in some cases at least the old old difficulty of holding 
the camera steady, which most of us know so well, had caused the defect. Some people get over this by 
always resting the camera on something solid, others acquire almost at once the trick of a steady grip, and 
then marvel at those of us who cannot. The anthropologist is occasionally witness of unique scenes, and 
it is important that he should be so complete a master of the art of snapshot photography that failure is 
impossible to him. 

tVe welcome the book most cordially, and look forward to seeing not only more of its kind, but also the 
more specifically scientific work at which Miss Blackman hints. Xo doubt she is possessed of a divine 
au.xiety to get as much as possible collected before it is lost for ever, but we need not remind her that 
knowledge stowed away in a scholars notebooks is often just as effectively lost as that which has never 
been gathered. It will shortly become her duty to review her ptositiou and to make some definite apportion- 
ment of lier time between collection and publication. 

T. Eric Feet. 


A Hisioiy of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. By Edwyn Bevan. London : Methuen and Co., 1027. 

This book, which reiilacos MahaflTy’s work of the same name in Sir Flinders Petrie’s series, is to be 
em-dially welcomed as the only up-to-date account in English of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Dr. Bcv.in, while 
jjaying a well-deserved tribute to the work of his predecessor, has wisely decided to re-write the history in 
his own way, inserting here and there a characteristic passage from MahaSy in inverted commas. I notice 
that on p. 3o2 he has been misled by Mahaffy into confusing the sakiya or water-wheel with the Ai-chimedcan 
screw, but this is an exceptional slip ; in general he has sifted the contents of the earlier book very carefully 
and critically. The dynastic history is recounted in eleven pleasantly written chapters, uo easy task, while 
as an interlude between the reigns of Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III wo have a long description, largely 
derivetl from papyri, of the internal organization of the country. Dr, Bevan seems to liave utilized all the 
material that has come to light in recent years. Inevitably some of his remarks and judgments will have 
to be uiodifed when this material has been more thoroughlj- scrutinized. For instance, the theory (p. 77) 
that on Nov. 12 or 13, 247 B.c. Ptolemy III became co-regent with his father is already discredited, and 
I have noted I'arious other erroneous or disjmtable statements, which are of no great interest except to the 
specialist. But in the imperfect light of our present knowledge we may say that the author has given us as 
goi}d a sketch of the Ptolemaic state as the scope of his work permitted. It seems to rue a very successful 
achievement. 

Dr. Sevan’s views are for the most part sane and sober, but be lias iiropounded one or two new theories 
on which I find it hard to agree with him. As regards the vexed question concerning the vios who appears 
as co-regent with Ptolemy II from 266 to 259 B.C., he rejects two of the former explanations on the ground 
that they are irreconcilable with the statement of the scholiast on Theocritus xviii, 128, that Ai-sinoe II 
died uTSKvos. His own view i.s that the vi6s was an elder and short-lived brother of Euergetes. But the 
scholiast has carefully given us the names of the children of Ptolemy and Arsiuoe I, and this elder brother 
is not among them. Xor is it correct to say that Arsinoe II adopted these children. It was the king who 
adopted her as their mother, probably long after her death. Nor, again, need otskvos in the passage referred 
to mean more than that Arsinoe died without bearing any children to her last husband. On the whole, the 
view of Beloch that the vi6s was the sou of Ly.simachiis and Arsinoe accords better with the evidence and 
with tlie political situation than any other that has been proposed. 

Another new suggestion made by Dr. Bevan is that the dd€\<pri who figures in the historical papyrus from 
Gurob is not Berenice the daughter of Philadelphus, but Berenice the wife of Euergetes visiting her husband 
*■ at the front,’' or rather, it would seem, directing luilitary operations from Antioch before her husband had 
arrived there with the main Egyptian force. A romantic conjecture, but the Gurob text remains to me a 
mystery. 

In discussing the dirojiotpa, the tax which in year 23 of Ptolemy II was taken over from the temples by 
the government and devoted, at least nominally, to the maintenance of the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus, 
Dr. Bevan has overlooked one important fact. The dwofioipa was a tax on orchards and vineyards, and the 
transfer took place just at the time when the government was endeavouring to make Egypt a great fruit- 
growing and wine-producing country. This appears very clearly in the Zenon correspondence, more 
especially in the letters of Apollonius the dioecetes. More than that, the papyri show that all or almost all 



NOTICES OE KECENT PUBLICATIONS 


199 


the new vineyards and orchards were in the hands of the Greek settlers. We cannot say how much of thfe 
dn-ofioipa was paid by foreigners, but certainly it must have been a very large proportion of the w'hole 
amount. Was it equitable then that these people, who were developing the land with the encouragement 
of the government, should be heavily taxed for the benefit of a religion which was not theirs? It seems to 
me that the king was perfectly right not to allow this unearned increment to flow into the coffers of the 
Egyptian temples. But in fact the action wdiich he took was a compromise. He retained the tax, but 
diverted the proceeds to a State cult in which all clas.ses of the population were obliged to take part. 
During his reign the Arsinoeia was a very great festival, at which every man was expected to sacrifice 
according to his means, and no doubt the government maintained the service of the cult, not only at the 
festival but throughout the year, with a lavish hand. But it is probable that even from the first the proceeds 
of the anopoipa were far greater than the curi-ent expenditure on the cult and that the king had a large 
balance at his disposal. 

The reform of the Egyptian calendar, as proposed by the priests in the Canopic inscription, is ascribed 
to a Greek brain in Alexandria, snpjwrted by the royal will (p. 207). This .seems an unnecessary assumption 
when we reflect that the Egyptians were quite capable of devising the required adjustment and that the 
object of it was to stabilize the recurrence of their own fe.stivals with reference to the .solar year. Why .should 
we supiiose the Alexandrians to have troubled about the slight imperfection of the Egyptian calendar, which 
they had not yet begun to use in Alexandria, when we know that they neglected to regularize their own 
calendar, in which the dated fe.stivals moved round the seasons with far greater rapidity than in the Egyptian 
year? Moreover, if the reform had been ordered by the king, it would have Wen effected ; if the government 
had taken a serious interest in it, the leap-year holiday would laive been officially instituted and main- 
tained. 

The author has done well to drop a large number of the illu-strations which appeared in Mahaffy’s book 
and to add a certain number of more interesting ones. With regard to the colossal figure of the young 
Alexander (fig. 8) he might have quoted a curious demotic dating, published by Reich in the Philadelphia 
Museum Journal, in which this very stiitue is spoken of. The extravagant coiffures shown in fig. 23 are not 
earlier than the 2nd century a.d. and are copied from Roman models; the Alexandrian women of the 
Ptolemaic age are not to be debited with such bad taste. A better choice would have been the charming 
faience head of a queen, inadequately reproduced in Xankratk ii, PI. 17, and now in the British .Museum. 

C. C. Edg.vk. 


I7e de Petosiris, grand-prttre de Thot. By Emile Suys, with a preface by Je.xx C.iP.vRT. Bru.ssels: 

Fondation Reine Elisabeth, 1927. Pp. 158. 6 plate.s. 

One of the most interesting Egyptian discoveries of the last ten years was that of the magnificent tomb 
built by the high-priest of Hermopolis, Petosiris, for his father Xesishu and liis elder brother Zedthotefonkh, 
his predecessors in the high-priesthood (he himself was al.s<.> buried in the tomb) at Derwah, near Ashmunen, 
which has been published in extenso by M. Lefebvre {Ann. Seri’., 1920, 41 ff. ; Le Tombeau de Petosiris, 
Cairo, Service des Antiquites, 1923-4). Its reliefs are of extraordinary importance on account of their 
combination of Greek with Egyptian elements ; they are documents inestimable in the history of 
Egyptian art as proof that Greek art could and did influence Egyptian artists in a way and to an extent 
we had hardly deemed possible hitherto. Xo doubt there were other examples of this really Graeco- 
Egyptian art besides the tomb cf Petosiri.s. We have e.xamples of its earlier stages in the tombs of 
Zanefer and Psamatik-nefer-seshemu, described by Maspero; but in none is the foreign art so largely 
adopted as in that of Petosiris. Yet we .see that the artist is an Egyptian. He was not a Greek imitating 
Egyptian motives. He was an Egyjjtian openly and intelligently expanding his artistic repertory by the 
admission of the artistic ideas of the foreign rulers of the laud, and doing it more successfully than his 
successors in the Roman i>eriod, not at all unnaturally, in fact. The result can be .seen in M. Lefebvre’s 
plates, of which examples arc reijroduced in the rather curious book before us by Pere Suys, who at the 
instance of M. Gapart, who prefaces it, has written it to popularize not only the art of Petosiris’s sculptor, 
but also, apparently, Petosiris himself, who does not really interest us so much. However M. Suys gives us 
a more or less imaginative sketch of the probable life of Petosiris, which takes a good deal for granted, 
especially as regards the precise period at which he lived. We agree that the probable period of his life is the 
latter part of the fourth century B.c. It is a very probable deduction from the style of his artist, which can 
liardly be any later than the very beginning of the Ptolemaic period, owing to the comparative puritv of 



200 


NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


its Egyptian elements, but, on the other hand, cannot possibly be so early as the date to which M. Montet 
ascribes it {Rec. Arch. 5« serie, t. xxiii, 1926, 161 ff.), c. 500 B.C., on account of its strongly emphasized 
Greek elements, which, besides, show no trace whatever of archaic Greek style: a mere glance at 
Jr. Suys’s Plate i is enough to show the veriest tjTO that the Greek art imitated is that of the fourth, 
not the sixth century B.c. I see no reason to suppose that this relief (which is strongly Graecizing, but not 
pure Greek) is of any later date than the rest of the tomb, though M. Suys apparently does (p. 18). If 
this is so, we are afraid that M. Montet’s learned argument about the calendar must go to the wall in face 
of the facts of Greek art, and we agree with 51. Lefebvre’s date for the monument, c. 300 b.c., which is 
also followed by M5I. Gapart and Suys. But there are iinpoiiderahilui to be considered, nevertheless. We 
do not hiimr that Petosiris was a contemjK)rary of, let us sav, Ptolemy Soter, though with M. Lefebvre, 
we think it extremely probable that he was, and that the foreign tyranny to which he refers in his inscrip- 
tions was that of Artaxerxes Ochus. But he might be later : a tine artist like his might have lived in the 
third century : there is nothing in his Graecizing style against this, though his Egyptian style seems a 
little too good. And he may have been referring to tbe Macedonian conquest, though this does not seem 
probable. The possibility however remains, just as does the other possibility also, that the reliefs may 
date earlier in the fourth century, as early as the time i>f the Nectanebos, and that it is the earlier Persian 
domination that he refers to. So that it is perhaps a little risky to speculate too much as to what events 
in the history of Egypt Petosiris may have .seen or taken part in. The book therefore lacks the element of 
reality, and is to be treated not as a .serious contribution to archaeology, but as a didactic romance, of 
admirable intention and undoubted use as a Tueans of interesting tbe unlearned in Egyptian matters. The 
only thing that is really interesting, however, in connection with Petosiris is the extraordinary style of his 
tomb sculpture, and on this 51. Suys does not, we think, lay nearly enough stress. We note an error on 
p. 19, on which, referring to Plate vi, the mummy-case of Petosiris is .said to have the head “coiffde de la 
perruque royale iklaft) ” ; it is, of course, not the royal headdress nemes (the so-called “ klaft,” which was 
incidentally not a wig at all, but a hair-bag), but the usual conventional coiffure of the dead. And why, 
on p. 14, should the writer of the Greek graffito An-oXXwroj be “ Phoebis, fils d’Ajwllon” : the name 
is the Egyptian Phih, “the ibis,” and has nothing to do with Pheebus, although his father was called 
Apollon (=II!or). “ Phoebis” in Greek would have to be a feminine name. 

H. R. Halu 

L’ Art egyptien. Par Charles Borecx. Bibliotheque d’histoire de I’art ; Paris and Bru.ssels Van Oest 1926. 

Pp. 62 ; 64 plates. 

5Ionsieur Boreux has written a very acceptable appreciation of Egyptian art in its chief aspects at all 
periods, as preface to an interesting anthology of pictures of Egyptian works of art of all kinds, arranged 
in 64 plates. Naturally and rightly he has cho.sen the majority of his examples from the collections of the 
Louvre, now, since the regretted death of the late 51. Benedite, under his care. The remainder are chosen 
from the Cairo 5Iuseum, with the exception of two from Berlin (Nefretiti, of course, and an ‘Amamah 
relief), two from Tui'in (Rames.ses II and a Sebennytite royal head), and one from Florence (the well-known 
Nineteenth Dynasty stone head of a lady). The Briti.sh 5Iuseum does not appear at all in the plates and its 
name is not mentioned in the preface, so far as .sculpture is concerned ; for although the portrait-statues of 
Sesostris III from Dgr el-Bahri are mentioned, no hint is given that the three be.st of the four are in the 
British 5Iuseum. In other branches of art the only objects in our national collection to which reference is 
made are the fiimous little ivory statuette of a First Dynasty king (No. 37993) found by Petrie at Abydos, 
and our “cuillers-a-fard,” which were published not long ago in the Journal (xiii, 7 ff.) by Mme Fredericq 
The great blue glaze «a«-sceptre in the 5rictoria and Albert 5Iuseum (placed there by Petrie on account 
of its remarkable technical interest as a triumph of glazing) is also mentioned. We are surprised that 
one at least of the Prudhoe lions was not illustrated, and that the little ivory king was not illustrated 
as weU as mentioned, for there is nothing like him of his date anywhere else. However, one knows the 
difficulty of compiling an anthology such as thi.s, and everyone has his own preferences in art. It is 
imp(xssible to s.ttisfy everybody, and we are grateful to 51. Boreux for his admirable selection of the master- 
pieces of the Louvre and of Cairo. Of those of the Louvre that are not well known here, we welcome for 
instance, the fine Fourth Dynasty head of king Dedefrer (Didoufri), PI. xx ; the bust of Akhenaten 
PI. xxxviii : the granite group of Tutrankhamun and the god Amun (PI. xli), of which the only drawback is 
the fact that the king’s head is broken off : the face of the god however is no doubt an idealized portrait 



NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


201 


of him ; and, above all, the remarkable little portrait-head of a princess in two shades of blue glass, 
of about the time of Amenophis III (PL Ixi). From Cairo, besides the well-known masterpieces, we 
welcome the small statue of Amenemmes III from Karnak (PL xxx). The Tuti'ankhamun treasures arc 
well represented by two plates (Iv, Ivi). From the Louvre we are given the old favourites, such as the 
always cheerful atid welcome little “scribe accroupi,’’ and the rest, including that remarkable head of a 
man of high cheekbones in i)ainted limestone from the Salt Collection (PL xxiij which is always ascribed 
(as it is by JI. Boreux) to the Fourth Dynasty, though personally I believe it to behuig to the end of the 
Eighteenth. It seems to me that the piercing of the ears makes it impossible to date it before the middle of 
the Eighteenth at earliest ; and its general appearance otherwise inclines me to ascribe it to the time of 
Akhenaten, or at any rate to that of Amenophis III. I notice that M. Boreux accepts the current 
attribution of a well-known royal head at Copenhagen to the Twelfth Dynasty (p, 24) : it seem.s to me (_it 
also does to von Bissiug and to LVeigall) to be undoubtedly late Saite or Sebennytitc (sec Journal, xiii, 
66), like another rather similar head at Bologna, which is or was unaccountably reganled there as a portrait 
of Horemheb (!), but is certainly Sebennytite or even po.ssibly early Ptolemaic. The.se two are the only 
criticisms of date-attributions by JI. Boreux that I would make, and they are merely matters of opinion, 
of course. There appears to be a slip on p. 33, where M. Boreux speaks of the bust of Xefretiti at Berlin 
as “passe d’Egypte en Allemagne pendant la derniere guerre, et expose depuis quelques aniiees au Musce 
de Berlin.” But how could it be j>ossible for anything to pass from Egypt to Germany during the war? 
The bust with the other things from El-‘Amarnah can only have gone to Berlin hrforc the war, in full time 
of peace. 

H. R. H.vli.. 


Die Kunst der Agypter. Von Georg Steixdorff. Leipzig, Insel-Verlag, 1928. Pp. 104, 17 text-illustrations, 

and 200 plates. 

Prof. Steiudorff’s book is more catholic than M. Boreux’s. The majority of its illustrations are of 
objects at Berlin and Cairo, it is true, as most of M. Boreux’s are at Paris and Cairo ; but Prof. Steindorft' 
does not ignore England wholly ; both the British Museum and the Ashmolean contribute representative 
pieces to his plates. One of the Prudhoe lions appears, for instance, and an e.xamplo of the archaic 
objects from Hierakonpolis at Oxford. Several object.s from the Louvre are given, including, of course, 
the “scribe accroupi.” 

Prof. Steiudorff’s book is very up-to-date. He not only includes most of the chief of Tutc ankhamun’s 
treasures in his repertory, but also the lately found statue of king Zo.ser at SaVkurah : the first good 
illustration we have seen of it (p. 173), showing well the strange and clumsy shape of the /(C«iei-headdress 
at that early period, and giving a good idea of this rather terrifying, spectre-like figure. Then at the 
other end of the scale he includes the strange reliefs of the tomb of Petosiris at Derwah, with their mixture 
of Egyptian and Greek art and their delicate arabesques, reminding us of nothing so much as of the wall 
decoration of some Italian house of the oinquecento. The Middle Kingdom Mer reliefs appear, and it is 
interesting to compare them with Petosiris or earlier Saite work. The Old Kingdom is well shown. 
‘Amaruah naturally bulks largely, and is well illustrated with several of the famous casts from the living 
and from statues found in the “ House of the Sculptor,” So also is the late Eighteenth Dynasty generally, 
Is it certain that the head of a king on p. 211 is really of the Eighteenth Dynasty 1 It does not give me that 
impression, though I should not like to date it. The head of a young man at Florence on p. 212 i.s called 
by Prof. Steindorft’ a “ Madchenkopf,” as it was by Frau Fechheimer {Plastik, p. 63, “ Kopf einer Frau ”). 
To me it has the face of a young man, not of a woman, and the method of wearing the hair parted in the 
middle was used by men under the Eighteenth Dynasty, as we .see from the statue of Amenophis, son of 
Hapu (p. 214), and that of Horemheb at New York, published by Witdock in Journal, x (1924), Pis. i-iii, 
and naturally flowing in the same way under the Twentieth, a.s we see from the .sketches of the painter 
Hui published by Erman in Zeitsckr. f. dg. Spr., XLli (1905), 130, and Spiegellxirg in op. cit., Liv (1917), 78, 
Can it any longer be maintained that this head is that of a woman, in face of the Horemheb statue which 
it so closely resembles ? LVe may regret that Prof. Steindorff did not include that statue in his anthology, 
for America would be better represented by it than it is by the gold Amuu from the Carnarvon collection 
in the Metropolitan Museum (p. 219). The collection of famous reliefs of the time of Amenophis III and 
Horemheb at Berlin, Leiden and Bologna is most welcome. 

Of Saite sculpture one is inclined to doubt w'hether the head of an elderly priest on p. 258 is not later 

.lourn. of. Egypt. Arch. xiv. 26 



202 


NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


than “urn 500 v. Chr.* From the extraordinarily naturalistic style, especially the quite un-Egyptian 
treatment of the ear, I should myself be inclined to date it rather about 350. 

Prof. Steindorff includes the smaller arts in his scope, and illustrates them well. The golden dagger of 
Tutrankhamun and the chased gold sheaths appear for the first time in a general work here. And we may 
specially commend his beautiful illustrations on p. 275 of four of the finest examples of Eighteenth Djmasty 
blue glaze bowls that are known. One with a figure of a girl squatting on a cushion and playing a rabab, 
with a monkey at her side, beneath a trellis of plants, is surely unique : almost Persian in effect. Personally, 
I could have dispensed with those dreadfully ta.steless and ugly painted alabaster monstrosities of Tutfankh- 
amun’s, pp. 271-73; mais chucun t> son goat. The translucent lamp with its picture (p. 272) is at any 
rate a Kariosum ; but the lion on the lid of the box on p. 273 looks as if he were a sweetmeat, and intended 
to be eaten. Egyptian taste was not always impeccable, and personally I would not be the one, in my 
anthology, to draw attention to its lap.ses. However, let us make up for this with the beautiful little 
wooden “ Salbschalen ” or “ Cuillers-a-fard” of pp. 283-4, and the “ SpiegelkapseP’ of p. 287, not to sjjeak 
of our well-known old friends of the grand time of the Twelfth Dynasty, the gold-work and the jewels 
from Dahshfir (pp. 291 S.). 

Like M. Boreu.x, Prof. Steindorfif includes architecture in his scope, and gives a good selection of views 
of buildings of various periods, including the recently discovered Third Dynasty buildings at Sakkarah. 

Xeetlless to say, his text, forming a complete introduction to his plates, is admirably written and will 
be most icseful alike to the archaeologist and to the general reader. His description of the development of 
the tomb-temple is specially clear. 

A translation of the book, with an anglicized transliteration of the Egyptian names (avoiding the 
German “ch” and “j” and such forms as “Edjdjet” or even “Wedjujet” (p. 193) for king^^), and 
with additional plates illustrating the British Mu.seum more worthily, would probably find a considerable 
sale here. It could not of course be recommended without these additional plates. A book on Egyptian 
art, if pul ili.shed in England, should devote more space to examples in our collections. But we wish cordially 
to acknowledge Prof. SteiudorfPs courtesy as well as acumen in publishing those English objects that ho 
has included in the German edition. 

H. E. Hall. 

Animals of Ancient Egypt. E. By David Paton. Princeton University Press: Humphrey Jlilford, 

Oxford L'niversity Pres.s. 

The conception and intended scope of this work are undoubtedly good, but the production and style 
are so poor that we are afraid it will be of little use to the student. Although this book is the first volume 
of the series, no introduction descriptive of the method of its use has been given. The chief fiiult, 
however, lies in the illustrations and the hieroglyphic text. The figures of the animals to which the 
text refers should have been reproduced on a much larger scale, and where it is possible notes of the 
colouring should have been added, so that the reader would easily be able to distinguish the peculiar 
features of each type. To take one examjde, page 2, nos. 6 and 7. Where is the distinction between E. 3. A. 
and E. 3, B. ? The illustrations in the text are much too small and very badly drawn. On page 23 (E. 72. B.) 
we have a copy of Mrs. Davies’s painting of a hippopotamus at bay from the tomb of Amenemhet. This 
js a typical example of the careles.s drawing and absurdly small scale of the illu.strations throughout this 
work. To sum up, Mr. Baton’s book puts us in mind of a ,student’.s note-book, quite intelligible to the 
writer but of little value to the reader. W. B. Emery. 

Thehes. The Olory of a Great Past. By Jean Capart and Marcelle Wekbhouck. London, 1926. 

This comprehensive survey of the Empire capital of Egypt will be of great value both to the specialist 
in Egyptian art and architecture and to the visitor who hitherto has been only able to turn to Baedeker 
for reference. 

The photographs are excellent, both in quality and selection, and M. Capart is himself to be congratu- 
lated on a number of these which come from his own camera. We notice a mistake on page 250 which is 
of some importance. “■ Eamosis was in office at the end of the reign of Amenophis III and during part of 
the reign of his predecessor.” Surely this last word should be successor. 

In the event of a further edition of this book we would like to suggest the iusertion of a number of 
plans of the temples and tombs, which would be Of immense value to the visitor to Egypt. 

For a non-specialist work on Thebes this book is unique. W. B. Emery. 



NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS 


20o 


Relazione sui lavori della Missione Archeologica Italiana in Egitto {Anni 1903-1920); II. La tomba 
intatta del! arohitetto Cha. By E. Schiapakelli. Torino : R. Museo di Antiohiti'i, 1927. Pp. 187 ; 

■ 169 illustrations. 

One of the most pleasant variations of a ride through Western Thel)es is to turn up sharply to the left 
between Medlnat Habu and Kurnat Mur‘ai into the Valley of the Queens’ Tombs and then strike off right 
up the little desert valley that leads to Der el-lledlnah. Crowds of tourists are left behind : one is in the 
real solitude of a rocky desert valley, along the side of which our narrow path runs to the head of the 
little pass, where stands within its high wall of unbaked brick the little temple of Der el-Medlnah. Further 
on the path, avoiding the enormous hole which was dug probably for the tomb of some noble or king of the 
Eleventh Dynasty, goes on by the rocky dale behind Shekh ‘Abd el-Kurnah to Der el-bahri. In this region 
fruitful tomb-excavations have been carried on by the Americans and the Italians, and more recently by 
the French. The excavations of M. Bruyere and of Dr. Schiaparelli in the valley were situated near the 
temple of Der el-Medinah and between it and the Valley of the Queen.s, where Schiaparelli had already 
dug. The present volume describes the important contents of the intact tomb-chamber of KhaC, a chief 
royal architect under the Eighteenth Dynasty, and of his wife Meryt, which was discovered and excavated in 
1906. The chapel of this tomb (No. 8) has always been known; for references see Porter and Moss, 
Topographical Bibliography, i {The Theban Necropolis), 57. The objects found in the chamber have been 
at Turin for twenty years, and it is odd to our thinking that their publication should have been delayed 
for twenty years. But all things come to those that wait. However, by this delay Schiaparelli has mi.ssed 
his market. Tutfankhamun has intervened, and our appetite for the contents of intact Egyptian tombs 
has beeti somewhat jaded. However, despite Tuti'ankhamun and luya and Tuyu, the contents of the tomb 
of Khaf are of very great interest, and tell us several things that we did not know before or illu.strate more 
completely things that we did know. 

Khaf, the ' [U j ^ I ^ ^ chief royal architect at the end of the reign of 

Tuthmosis III, confirmed in ofllce under his two sucees.sors, and died in the reign of Amenopbis III. If he 
died about 1405 b.c. and was already chief of the works under Tuthmosis III, i.e. before 1450, he will, if he 
was appointed to his office at about the age of thirty, about 1460 (let us say), have been eighty-five at hi.s 
death, which is a good age, quite good enough, one would think. But Schiaparelli for some reason (jc 190) 
make.s him born under Tuthmosis I, which would mean that he was at least a centenarian at his death, 
probably about 110 years old, which is not at all probable. It would interesting to have his mummy 
examined ; but this Schiaparelli tells us nothing about : there i.s no description in the b()ok of any 
scientific examination of it. It is not probable that he wa-s more than 85, and he may have been five years 
younger, at his death. Nor is there any description of the mummy of Merj’t. 

Of their splendid coffins (Figs. 17 ffi), however, and of the remarkable objects buried with them, 
Schiaparelli gives general descriptions and very good photographs. The contents of the tomb were found 
heaped up much in the same way as they were in the tomb of Tut'' ankhamuu, so that the chamber looked 
much like a furniture-rei)ository. The same linen covers were found stretched over important objects, such 
as the coffins. The funerary papyri, which are very finely written and vignetted, are fully deserilied and 
illustrated (Figs. 31 ff.). But the discoverer thinks too much of the wooden figure of Khai" (Figs. 32 ffi), which 
is not a good exami)le of the art of the time. 

The chair on which it was found .standing with .some ushabtis (Fig. 38) is a good example, the other 
furniture numerous but normal, with the exception of a little “gai-den-table” of reed (Fig. 103) which might 
have come from modern Japan. The many and various funeral boxes are all good and interesting. But 
(with the exception of the golden cubit, to be mentioned later) the mo.st interesting things of all in the 
tomb are the clothes, bedclothes, towels, etc., of which there were a great number, placed in rolls (Figs. 64-67). 
The clothes es{)ecially are most interesting and rather di.sconcerting : they do nut quite tally with ideas 
derived from the statues and paintings. The heavy winter sleeveles.s tunics, for instance, are a surpri.se, 
■so are the coloured bordem, and, to a less extent, the long fringes. We should have liked Schiaparelli to 
illustrate lay-figures with some of these things on, to see how they look. Of course one has to allow for 
st.irching and gauffering, which would make a difference in their ap£)earanc-e. A queer touch is the laundry- 
mark on each garment. Jleryt’s wig (Fig. 74), with its cover and basket, is a good example of its kind. 

Of the vases the painted pottery funnel (Fig. 45) is unique, and most interesting, as are also the metal 
strainers. Fig. 52, with the accompanying drinking-apparatus of metal and fayence. We can compare the 
Icctden drinking-syphon with its strainer-end found at ‘Amamah in 1921 and now in the British Museum 

26—2 



204 


NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


(Xo. 55,14S; exhibited in the Fifth Egyptian Room, case E). Of the pottery Schiaparelli notes (p. 140) 
forms almost indistinguishable from some of the Middle Kingdom ; another proof of the shortness of the 
period separating the Twelfth from the Eighteenth Dynasty. The metal vase-stands are very fine, especially 
one in openwork that proves the Eighteenth Dynasty date of the similar but more elaborate stands at Loij)zig 
published by Steindorff [Blutezeit'^, p. 146; and Kunst der Agypter, p. 300j as Eighteenth Dynasty, which 
otherwise might have been thought to be Ptolemiiic. The wash-hand basin and ewer of bronze (Fig. 117) 
are singularly beautiful, and might well be Japanese. The wooden case of the curious leather object (Fig. 51), 
supposed to be a level, looks oddly Roman or Coptic with its incised design, but the zigzag round the 
rosette is not Roman. The most interesting instrument, and in some ways the most valuable object found 
in the tomb, is the golden cubit-rule with in.scriptions of Amenophis 11, referring to his opening of royal 
buildings at Hermoiiolis, which wa.s no doubt presented to Khai" by that king on that occasion (Figs. 155, 156). 
“E...di lamina d’ oro, sostenuta internamente da anima di legno’’ (p. 168i. The incised insciiptions are very 
unusual, especially that referring to Hermopoli.s : ^ ■I i ^ P ^ ^ fe 

Schiaparelli thinks this refers to the starting forth of the king on the Asiatic campaign of 
his second year (c. 1446 B.c.); on his way north from Thebes; “Came H.M., his heart rejoicing, into the 
house of his venerable father Amun. His soldiers with him were as locusts. He stayed at Hermopolis ; 
he built Uk) the walled house of ('Aa-khcperu-Rc*'' on the second day of the inundation, when the I'iver 
rose at the time of (its; widening.” It is not a case of a ‘piccolo tempio,’ as Schiaparelli says, but of a 
secular building, probably little more than a walled royal kiosk. Xo doubt Kli.i*" built it, but whether he 
did it in one day we do not know. Perhaps he did, and that was why he was git en the golden cubit-mcasuro. 

Another pre.sent from royalty was a .small handled saucer of electrum, with the incised prcnomen of 
Amenophis III ;Fig. 157), no doubt given to KhaC in his old age as a mark of the young king's favour, and 
with a further inscription in black, t£j ' \ U j 1^^, added after hi.s death, unless it was a special post- 
mortem gift from the king's store of .such things to the funeral equipment of his distinguished subject, 
which is equally possible. A scribe’s palette with inscription of Amenmes, a very important court officer, 
llabellifer on the right hand, superintendent of all the works of the jialace and of the treasurio.s, decorated 
with the golden fly, in the reign of Tuthmosis 11', was no doubt a present from him to his more humble 
colleague. Rut the great situla (Fig. 158) with the inscription of the scribe L’serhct, priest of the deceased 
queen Mutnofrit and hem-ka of the prince.ss Sitamun, w.is perhaps not a present from anybody, though wo 
do not know how it came into Kha''’.s po.sscssion : it was m.tdc probably some time before he was born 
about a century before it found its last resting-place in his tomb. Other objects in the tomb cited by 
Schiaparelli as presents can hardly be such: we may instance the draughts-box of ,i certain rather 
reverend gentleman, devoted to the service of Amun, named Mery-benret, (j'A J (not ‘Benor- 
merit,’ as Mchiaparelli says; which would be a woman’s name), which bears funerar\- in.scriiitions for 
Mery-bcnret, and so was no business of Khat’s, properly speaking. Xor had it, properly speaking, anythin"- 
to do with another person, the superintendent of the king's works Xeferhebef, who is represented on it 
.seated with his wife and receiving funerary offerings from his son, who.se name, so far as I can read it 
from the illustration (Fig. 161; is Mery-benret. I may be wrong, as it is difficult to see, and Schiaparelli 
does not give the name of the son, which however is certainly and so 2>resumably J although 

this ha.s not occurred to Schiaparelli. It e,xplains the occurrence of the iicimes of both Xeferhebef and 
Mery-benret on the .same object : Mery-benret commemor.ues his father and mother on his own' funerary 
draughts-box. Besides this box, a walking-stick with a long funerary inscription of Xeferhebef cut on it 
was also found in the tomb, and the stick of a Khatemuas, who bore the same title as Kh-if 

Xow KhaC may be the .same jierson as Khar emuas : names were shortened at that time in this way : we may 
instance User- Amun, of tomb Xo, 131 at Shekh ‘Abd-el-IIurnah (recently published by de Garis Davies 
BidL Met. Mue. N.Y., 19:16, ii, 4:1) who was usually called iilain ‘User.’ So we may discount the separate 
existence of this Khaf emuas, and supiiose with reason that this stick was a iiresent to Khar from himself, 
or rather from his executors, as it too bears a funerary inscription ( j.^), like the stick and draughts-box 
of Xeferhebef and Mery-benret. The most probable e-xxilanation of the existence of the two latter objects 
in Khab.s tomb is that it was not originally made for Khar, but housed the burials of Xeferhebef and his 




NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS 


205 


soil Mery-benret, who were evicted from it for some reason by Kha^", when two pieces of their tomb-furniture 
were left behind. The fact that Neferhebef was apparently a predecessor of KhaC in office (he was 
I not supplj' a hint as to motive. He lived not very long before 

Kha<', for the inscriptions of Mery-benret are to my mind no earlier than the reign of Tuthmosis III, 
though the scene of offering to Xeferhebef looks older. The only other explanation is that Khaf bought 
from the maker the draughts-box whicli Mery-benret had had inscribed for his and his father’s tomb, but 
had rejected for some reason, and that Khar foi’got to .substitute his name on it for that of the original 
owner, before he died, and his heirs omitted to do so after his death. Such an explanation, although possible 
in the case of one thing, becomes less probable when we are dealing, as now, with two : for Neferhebef’s 
stick has also to be taken into consideration. Anyhow there can be no question of any present fi-om a 
benevolent friend of KhaC’s in this case. 

Among other things in the tomb the provisions are also worthy of .special notice, especially the loaves 
and above all the cakes and biscuits in various forms, three-cornered scones (like the loaf from Der el- 
bahri [Brit Mus. No. 40,942], published by me in Naville and Hall, Deir el-bahari, Xlth Di/n., ill, p. 24, 
pi. xix), ^cs-va.se.s, figs, papyrus-flowers, |-.signs (?), and goats (Fig. 1.35), reminding us much of the similar 
“mixed biscuits” found by Sir Aurel Stein at Astana, near Turfan in Chinese Turkestan, and dating from 
the T’ang Dynasty, c. 6.'i0-750 .t.D., which were exhibited at the British Museum last year. 

A very remarkable thing is an alabaster vase in which is a medicament: an oil or ointment (p. 154) 
containing iron and morphine (“un grasso di natura vegetale, continente ferro ed oppio”). The opium is 
understandable ; but the iron is a surprise. However, iron was now well known to the Egyptians, though 
very precious, as the dagger of Tutf ankhamun shows so far as arms are concerned. And it would appear 
that its medical use was also known. 

There remains little more to be said with regard to the objects found, except to mention a formidable 
leather truncheon left behind by a taskmaster of the workmen (Fig. 14) and to note that there is a contri- 
bution to the vexed question of Egyptian lighting in a bronze lamp in the form of a bird, mounted on a 
slender wooden stand in the shape of a lotus-column (Figs. 127-8). 

The outer chapel of brick, originally pyramidal, which has been known since the time of Wilkinson, was 
well painted, .so far as the vaulted roof is concerned (Figs. 164, 166), and has recently attracted the attention 
of Mr. DE Garis Davies {Bull. Met. Mics. N.V., 1922, ii, 51). The stele “che da oltre un secolo fa parte 
delle collezioni del Museo di Torino ” (p. 184), where it is No. 162, is remarkably poor. On it Khaf and 
Meryt receive ofterings from their son Amonemopet (Fig. 165). 

From the above it will have been seen how interesting the contents of this tomb are. Schiaparelli’.s 
account is easy and flowing, but lacks precision. It is readable, which too many accounts of excavations 
are not, and which this deserved to be. But it is not scientifically precise. We do not want the whole 
book to be a dry catalogue ; but we do ask nowadays for an inventory of all the objects foimd, with the 
measurements of everything, and we do ask for the complete text of every inscription, so that one has not 
to guess at a reading with a magnifying-glass as in the case of the probable name of Mery-benret in the 
scene of the offering to Neferhebef and his wife on Mery-benret’s draughts-box (above, p. 204). And in 
the illustrations we do ask for a scale again.st every object. Schiaparelli not only does not give us a 
single one, but he does not mention in his text the measurements of all the objects described, by any means. 
Schiaparelli is an Egyptologist of the older school, and the strict discipline in these matters of the 
yomiger archaeologists (which to them is second nature) is not adopted by him. Apart from this, however, 
we have nothing but praise for this fine iiublication. Schiaparelli may be of the older school, and so 
lack the scientific precision that the younger school demands, but he is an Egyptologi.st of great position 
and knowledge, and he has given us of his best in this edition of the treasures of ancient civilization which 
he was lucky enough to discover in the tomb of Khaf, and which the museum of Turin is to be congratulated 
on possessing. IVe cannot close this appreciation of the book (which the Ministry of Public Instruction, 
General Direction of Antiquities and Fine Arts, has forwarded to us through the Embassy and the Dh-ector 
of the British Museum) without a further reference to the excellence of the photographs and of their 
reproduction in photogravure, which is a credit to Italian workmanship. We wish we could say the same 
of the printing of the hieroglyphs, which is very bad : they are of an ancient fount, and sometimes look as 
if they were wood-blocks. The other printing is so excellent that we would suggest that Schiaparelli 
should not in future disfigure his books with so bad a fount, but should advise the “O.P.E.S.” (his printers) 
to invest in Dr. Gardiner’s new fount which we use in the Journal. 


H. E. Hale. 



206 


NOTICES OF EEGENT PUBLICATIONS 


Kinderspielzeiig am alter Zeit. By Karl Gkobek. Berlin. 

l)r. Karl Grober, of Munich, has published with the Deutscher Kunstrerlag, of Berlin, an interesting 
volume on children’s toy.s of all age.s fi-om Twelfth Dynasty Egypt to the nineteenth century, which 
devotes a short section to ancient Egyptian toys. Several examples in the British Museum -are illustrated, 
notably the well-known wooden walking lioness with the moveable lower jaw (Xo. 15671), the jerking toy 
(on the monkey-on-a-stick principle) of a bound and prostrate negro prisoner being worried bv a hound 
(No. 26254), and several dolls. The lioness is described as a tiger; although the toy is of the Roman 
period, when the tiger had no doubt become known to the Egyptians, we think it more prcjbable that 
a lioness was intended. The prisoner-and-hound toy, which is of the Nineteenth Dynasty or possibly of the 
Eighteenth, throws rather an unjJeasant reflection on the sort of royal pa.stime that was considered 
appropriate then to be reproduced a.s a child’s toy. Other toy.s illustrated, of the same type, are the very 
remarkable wooden ichneumon (mongoose) pouncing on a snake, in the Leyden Museum, the early figure 
(Twelfth Dynasty ?) grinding corn or kneading bread, also at Leyden, and the crocodile with moveable lower 
jaw (Roman) at Berlin. The common Roman homes on wheels of coume appear. But of the two supposed 
toys from the Louvre, a stone lion and faience hedgehog mounted on wooden four-wheeled carriages, we 
Irelieve that the lion and the hedgehog cannot originally belong to the carriage.s. These are no doubt both 
Roman; but the hedgehog is Saite and the lion is difficult to date, but probably not Roman. M’e believe 
that here is an examine of the way in which in pre-arcliaeological days unrelated things wore often put 
together to “look pretty.” Whether the lion and the hedgehog themselves are to be regarded strictly 
speaking as toys is doubtful ; certainly the Sixth-Eleventh Dynasty wooden figures of servants, alsc) 
illustrated, are not; they are, of course, funerary models, placed in the t(unb, and should not have been 
included. The book is finely got up, the photograph.s are excellent, and the descriptive text interesting. 

H. R. H-vll. 


I papiri ieratici del Maseo di Toritio. 11 (Jianiaht della Seerupoli di Tebe, ^'o]. i, a cura di Giu.sepi’e Botti 
e T. Eric Rest (fa.scicolo 1). Torino, Fratelli Boeca editori, 1P28. (Obt.iinable from Hodder and 
Stoughton, London, and Geuthner, Paris.) 

The appearance of this first part of a systematic publication of the papyri of Turin, one of the most 
important collections of ancient Egyptian paiiyri in e.xistencc, is certain of a warm welcome from 
Egyptologists. So fragmentary is the condition of most the p.tpyri that an adequate publication of 
them wa,s hardly possible until now when Egyptology has exercised itself upon them more or less for 
a whole century, and a combination of skill in reading the hieratic, fitting the fragments and reproducing 
the result by photography has found also a publi.sher willing to undertake the heavy cost of issuin” 
the work. “ 

While, in November 1824, Champollion was at Turin studying the Di'ovetti collection of Egyptian 
antiquities, he relates that after examining those papyri that were well preserved ho was brought "to 
a table ten feet long covered “at least six inche.s deep” with fragments. In this heap of hieratic writim^s 
(only some thirty months after bis first decipherment of a hieroglyphic siguL his practised eye and keen 
intelligence recognised the remains of a chronological ILst of king.s and many other important documents 
bearing royal names, discoveries which he briefly describes in hi« Seconde lettre au due de Blaeas In 
1826-7 the erratic scholar .Seyfiu'th extracted from the mass every fragment of the Papyrus of Ivinas and 
fitted them all together with great ingenuity in a .series of which first Lepsius and then Gardner 'Wilkinson 
published facsimiles. Forty years after Champollion’s visit a new period of activit%- commenced Lepsius 
Lieblein, Chabas and Deveria published some important documents from the collection and in 1869-76 
Ros.si, the acting director of the museum, hetving summarily catalogued the fragments and supplied Pleyte 
m HoUand with tracings of many of them, the latter issued no le.ss than 158 large plates of firc-similes with 
commentaries and translations. 


About thirty years ago Professor Schiaparelli, the present director of the museum bevan a systematic 
sorting and fitting together of the fragments, most of which proved to be of the Twentieth Dynasty 
Signor Botti in his spare time ha.s continued this work (excluding only the fra.rments of funerary 
documents) and has lately published notes of several very intere-sting discoveries-remnauts of a reffister 
of household.^, and of a hymn celebrating the deeds of Tuthmosis III in Asia, a precursor of the so-called 
“ Poem of Pentaur” of Ramesses II. Now, collaborating with Professor Peet, our tireless Editor who^ 
we all know has made a special study of the judicial papyri of the Twentieth Dynasty Botti has Ugan the 



NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 


207 

publication, commencing with a group of fragments which has been brought into a final state of preparation, 
the publishing house of Fratelli Bocca most nobly supporting the enterprise. 

The necropolis of Thebes with its sumptuous private tombs and its fabulously rich royal sepulchres was 
a centre of great activity during the New Kingdom and the home of a large population of priests and 
workmen emjfioyed at the tombs and temples The most valuable and extensive series of the fragments at 
Turin (excluding the Papyrus of Kings) is that which belongs to journals, which when complete probably 
gave a recoi-d of the principal events concerning the necropolis during the later part of the Twentieth 
Dynasty. W ould that some of them had lieen complete I The construction of ro 3 ’al tombs, the robberies 
from them, the commissions of enquiry, the equipment and composition of the office of management, the 
days of accession of the obscure Eamesside kings would all have been read in black and white (or rathoi- 
brown) on the papyri, but alas! only tattered pages of .some i.solated jiortions have been preserved. 

In this first instalment we are given a piece of a joiu-nal of the end of year 13 and the beginning 
of year 14 written on back and front of two fragments. The editors show that the reign is that of 
Xeferkcre^, commonly' known as Rame.s.ses IX. The remains of the recto are entirely occupied by a list, in 
three pages, of boats and other equipment valued in silver deben and h'te. On the three pages of the verso 
is a diary from the fifth epagomenal day of year 13, apparently’ with little break in the fragments, to the 
twenty-fourth day or more of the first month of inundation of year 14, i.e. about one month; yet the 
editors point out that there are serious difficulties as to the date on which the change from year 13 
to year 14 took place. Beside the photographic plates there is a very useful diagram of the fragments and 
of the pages of writing. There is a diagram also of a much longer series of about thirty fragments, large 
and small, of the journal of year 17, of which sixteen pages are recognisable on the recto and about the 
.same number on the verso. The entries for each day vary from one line to twenty and for months 
together the principal and often the only item was that the workmen were not working, the reason being 
apparently that their wages or food supplies were in arrears all the time. Absence of “strangers” or 
of “ Libyans ” is also often noted, but the exact significance of this tantalising entry is not yet apparent. 
At the same time enquiries were being conducted into robberies of tombs, which were indeed likely to have 
taken place in such a disorganized state of things. 

About one-third of this papyrus is published in the fasciculus. Four pages give the names of eight 
persons imprisoned for tomb robbery and the rations allowed for them and for others ; the other pages 
record many particulars from the middle of the first winter month to the middle of the third of year 17 
during which the workmen were still starved and doing nothing and the mo.st important business was that 
of the robberies, the confessions of some of the thieves being recorded. 

The.se fragmentary journals mention people and events that appear also in other papyri in Turin and 
the British Museum. Very little of all thi.s had been published previously — only parts of two pages 
by Pleyte and Rossi in a tracing and with little understanding of the contents. It is not until the whole 
has been published that we can realize its contribution to the picture of Ancient Egyptian life at an 
alarming crisis. 

The authors’ method of publication is the most complete possible : the fragments are carefully listed 
and described, and all the writing is turned into hierogl^-phic in plates coiTesponding to the facsimile and i.s 
translated with brief but learned commentary'. 

The following corrections and suggestion.s have occurred to me in reading the fragments. 

Journal of year 13 : 

Page 3, recto, 1. 10. A must be the jercr-boat of Nauri stela, 11. 24, 25 ; of. Brugsch, ^Vb. 1466. 

Page 1, verso, 1. 6. “ This day the wazir arrived (back ?) from the south (lit. ‘ going north ’), whereas he 
had gone to bring the second priest of Amun.” — o is for 

Ib., 1. 11. “The inspector of the province departed saying ‘ We will report to the vizier’ {i.e. ‘intending 
to report to the vizier’), as the scribe Pbe.s was waiting for them.” 

Page 3, verso, 1. 3. “ The workmen came.” 

Journal of year 17 ; 

Page 1, B. recto, 1. 2. Certainly not ; 1. 4, 1 1 seems to me the real equivalent of this common 
late group; 1. 9, “himgry, short of their {m-my for m-imy) provisions”; 11. 10, 17, 1. 18, “regarding 

(/«) all prortsions ” ; 1. 25, add before loCrtw. 

Page 2, B. recto, 1. 17. Omit “pescatore”; 1. 30, ; 1. 31 , for “andar su” rather “mount,” “ride.” 

We shall all look forward to the continuation of the “Journal” in thi.s fine publication. 

F. Ll. Gkifpith, 






209 


A PAINTED TERRACOTTA HEAD IN THE 
BRITISH MUSEUM 

By H. E. hall 
W ith Plates xvi and xvii. 

The head in the British Museum (No. 21820) of which photographs are published 
in Plates xvi and xvii is an interesting piece, unpublished previously, so far as I am 
aware. It is said to have been found in the Fa 3 yum, but for this there is nothing but 
the word of the man who sold it to the Rev. Greville Chester, from whom it was acquired 
in 1887. ^rom the facial traits it has usually been taken to be a portrait of a woman. 
Its date has generally hitherto been assumed to be Roman, but for no very cogent 
reason that I can see. It is odd and difficult to place, but it can hardly be of the Roman 
period. The treatment of the features makes this unlikely, and I cannot believe it to be 
Roman, and am inclined to assign it to the Eighteenth Dvnastv. It looks to me like a 
work of the reigns of Tuthmosis IV or Ameno 2 )his III, between 1125 and 1375 b.c. The 
way in which the nose, mouth, and chin are modelled is to m_v eye distinctly reminiscent 
of work of the end of the fifteenth century. 

If so, is it a man or a woman? One would say, certainly a woman. But an Egyptian lady 
of that time should have a much longer coifi'ure, parted in the middle. This short wig or 
hair with the square fringe over the forehead (not worn then by women) looks more like 
that of a man. The head may represent a young man. Young male portraits at this period 
not seldom present a rather feminine contour. But the point cannot be definitely decided, 
as it can in the case of the well-known bust of a young man of this period in the 
Birmingham Museum of Fine Arts (cast in the British Museum) which is of course with- 
out doubt male, despite the fact that it has mistakenly been attributed to the opposite 
sex^. The coiffure in No. 21820 is not quite of the regulation male type, as is that of the 
Birmingham figure, but is very like it. But if the head is not of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 
and is that of a woman, the only suggestion I can make is that it belongs to the Old 
Kingdom (Fourth-Sixth Dynasty), like the wife of the SJiekh el-beled (who has “bobbed,” 
though parted, hair), and that does not seem to me to be at all so probable as an 
Eighteenth Dynasty origin. 

It is a curious piece. For one thing, it is not the broken off upper part of a figure. 
It is a bust, intended to be fitted either on a simple pedestal-block (and so be a simple 
bust), or possibly on to a body of a different material, wood perhaps. For the shoulder- 
part is hollow, to fit over the tenon of the body (?) below; and the edges of the bust are 
carefully rounded off and the paint covering the whole is carried round them into the 
cavity. But there are no arms. This is then a true bust. And so it is in all probability 
just a sculptor’s model, and had no body. 

1 See Petrie, Ahc. Eg., l (]914), 48. Thi.s is part of a seated group of a man and his wife, of a type 
common at that time ; his wife’s hand is seen on the man’s back, in the usual affectionate position. 

Joum. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


27 



210 


H. R. HALL 


It is half life-size, measuring 14 ins. (0'355 m.) in height; the head from chin to 
crown 6 ins. (O’ 152 m.). Its material is terracotta, well baked brown-red pottery with a 
deep red surface reinforced by red paint; this is best preserved on the lower part. The 
hunched appearance of the right shoulder is due to the rubbing away of the softer 
material where, as can be seen in the plate, the red surface has flaked off. On the 
face the original surface has mostly gone, but there are remains of red paint on the 
forehead, of black on one eye, and of black on the fringe of hair over the forehead. 
Luckily the features, however, are intact, showing an individual portrait with large mouth 
and short upper lip. The short wig or hair was originally painted black over the red 
surface. At some time the head has been partially burnt so that the whole of the wig 
on the right side has been charred and has broken away, leaving a blackened surface. 
It is evident that the wig was slapped on to the clay head when the latter was getting 
dry ; it is not altogether of one piece with the rest of the head, and was inclined to separate 
from it. The head had broken off from the shoulders, and is mended with modern glue, two 
streaks of which run down the front of the bust and should not be mistaken for darker 
ancient paint. Whether the burning is due to bad firing on the part of the potter or is 
later is difficult to say. Is it a potter's failure? 

The style is summary: the fringe of hair over the forehead for instance is indicated 
by a rough succession of marks. The treatment of the eyes with the dipping line next 
the nose, and with careful outline cut out with the knife, is noticeable. The portrait is 
obviously well characterized. Is it of the Eighteenth Dynasty or of the Old Kingdom? 

I think, on account of the facial characteristics and the treatment of the eyes, that 
it is of the Eighteenth Dynasty, about the time of Amenophis III, and that if so it is 
probably intended to represent a man. The coiffure seems to me male, with the typical 
square-cut fringe of the men of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Men sometimes parted their hair 
in the middle then too, but women always have their hair parted in the middle even when 
it is “bobbed,” until under the later New Kingdom and the Saites we find them wearing 
short coiffures (probably wigs), not parted. But that coiffure is quite different from that 
of this head, which seems to me to be very like the ordinary Eighteenth Dynasty male 
hairdress minus the two lappet-like locks or masses of hair that usually fall from behind 
the ears on to the shoulders. It is a question whether these two locks did not originally 
exist on the head, but have flaked off. I doubt this, however, as the “bob” is square and 
not rounded off so as to show part of the ear, as it normally would. 

The red colour of the bust is also an argument in favour of its representing a man. 
The face (though, of course, much coarser and rougher) is, with its short upper lip, 
curiously reminiscent of that of the Birmingham head, the date of which is undoubted. 
It is an “Eighteenth Dynasty face,” in my opinion. And from the date of its acquisition, 
1887, I should say that it is highly likely that it really came from EI-‘Amarnah. 



Plate XVII 



Eighteenth (?) Dynasty Terracotta Bust; British Museum. 

Sfalr i 





Plate XVI II 



(1) The Sha-animal. I'roni tlie mace-head of the Scorjiion Kin_L,^ 

(2) Model of a )-oung pig showing the stripes ^o'lc 1 

(3) Faience model of a sow with young. B.M. riQ/d. r. 

(4) Glazed figure of a sow. h’irst D>’nasty ■sli<jltilii m-cr .s/;. 


211 


THE PIG AND THE CULT-ANIMAL OF SET 

By P. E. NEWBERRY 
Plates xviii and xix. 

I. The Domestic Pig in. Ancient Egypt. 

The domestic pig was already known to the Egyptians of predynastic times; small 
models ^ of it in clay have been found in graves of that period at Abydos and elsewhere 
in Upper Egypt. A glazed figure of a sow'^ dating from the First Dynasty has been 
discovered at Abydos (PL xviii, fig. 4), and it is remarkable that it is similar in shape 
to the faience amuletic sows that were common in Saite times (PI. xviii, fig. 3). The 
earliest mention of the domestic pig in literature occurs in the biography of Methen®, 
an official who, under one of the monarchs of the Third Dynasty [circa 2900 b.c.), held 
important administrative posts in Lower Egypt. He says that on the death of his 
father he was given the deceased man’s property, which included “people and small 
cattle,” the latter, according to the determinatives of the word used, comprising asses 
and pigs*. Swine [siw) are mentioned in the inventory of Thutinekht’s possessions given 
in the Story of the Peasant® [circa 2200 b.c.). An Egyptian sage®, describing the 
conditions of his country during the civil wars between the Thebans and the Herakleo- 
politans, says that so scarce had food become that men had perforce to “eat herbs, 
and wash them down with water; no fruit nor herbs were to be found for the birds, 
and even ordure (?) was taken away from the mouth of swine.” Under Sesostris I 
(1950 B.c.) a certain Menthuweser^ was placed in charge of the royal farms, and he gives 
as one of his titles ^ j “ Overseer of Swine,” — the only instance of such a title that has 
been found in Egypt. That pigs were bred in considerable numbers throughout the Nile 
Valley in the New Kingdom is proved by several contemporary statements. Renni®, 
Mayor of El-Kab, says that he possessed 100 sheep, 1200 goats, and 1500 pigs. The 
royal scribe Amenhotep records® that among the property given by King Amenophis III 
to the temple of Ptah at Memphis were 1000 pigs and 1000 young (?) pigs. In the reign 
of Seti I the pig was bred in the temple domains at Abydos*®, In the Ebers, Hearst, and 

' British Museum No. 50639; Qcibell, Hierukoiipolis, i, PI. xxii, 8. 

2 Petrie, Abydos, u, PI. vi, Xo. 66, and p. 25. 3 Sethe, Urkunden, l, 3. 

■* In the Satrap Stela (Alexander II) in the Cairo Museum, the word mnmn, “cattle,” is determined by 
three oxen, a ram, a gazelle, a pig and an ass (Sethe, Urkunden grierh.-roni. Zeit, 19). 

5 Vogelsaxg-Gardixer, Die Klagen des Bauern, Taf. 24, I. 138. 

® G.crdiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, 45. 

' C. L. Raxsojib, The Stela of Afenthuweser, 18. s Sethe, Urkunden, iv, "5, 1. 15. 

» Petrie, Akernphis, v, PI. Ixxx, 1. 24. An account papyrus in the handwriting of the late New Kingdom 
(Mabiette, Papyrus egyptiens du Mvsee de Boulaq, ii, PI. v) also refers to swine. 

10 Professor Griffith in hi.s paper on the Abydos Decree of Seti I at X'auri in Journal, xiii, 201 ff., 
translates the word siw (lines 35, 56, 58, 59) by “dog.s,” but this Is obviously an error; the domesticated 
animals named are kino, asses, goats and pigs. For the reading siw see p. 202, footnote 9, and cf. p. 204, 
footnote 1. 


P 


27—2 


212 


P. E. NEWBERRY 


other medical papyri, the blood, gall, liver, etc,, of pigs were often directed to be used 
in medical prescriptions In Renni’stomb^ at El-Kab occurs the earliest representation 
of domesticated swine in an agricultural scene. In the tomb of Paheri®, also at El-Kab, 
a swineherd is figured driving a drove of pigs. In three tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty 
at Thebes^ swine are again depicted in agricultural scenes (PI. xix, figs. 1 and 2), and 
in two of these the animals are shown being driven over fields of newly sown corn to tread 
it in, — a custom that still prevailed in Egypt a thousand years later when Herodotus® 
visited the Nile Valley. In Graeco-Roman times swine were bred in considerable numbers 
throughout the country®. A tax was imposed upon them, and there are many refer- 
ences in the papyri of the period to swineherds and pig-merchants’. At the present day 
pig-breeding in Egypt is mostly confined to Coptic villages®, but in some of the larger 
towns of Upper Egypt considerable numbers are reared by the Greek merchants for export 
to Cairo and Alexandria. 

II. Names for the Pig in Ancient Egyptian. 

The commonest name for the domestic animal was fern. si-t, 

pb siw, Coptic uje; fern, rujw, pi. emivTs-. It is first found in texts of the 

Herakleopolitan Period; {ahbr. ^), 525^^, Zeitschr. f. dg. Spr., lviii, IT*, 20*. 

1 In the Hear, ft Medical Papyrus:, 16, 4-C, there is <a prescription “against the bite of a pig.” 

- Tyloh, W/dl-Dron-ings af El Kah, iv, PL iv. 

■’ Tylor-Griffith, The Tomb of Paheri, PI. iii. 

■* Sfiegelberg-Nf.wberky, Pivport on Some Excaratious in the Theban yecropolis, PI. .\iii, p. 14. The 
illustration given in PI. .\ix, tig. 1, is reproduced from a tracing of the scene of swine in the tomb of 
Inena (Xo. 81) at Thebes. This scene i.s now much mutilated : a pencil drawing of it, made by Sir Gardner 
Wilkin.son, probably in the late twenties of last century, is pre.served among his papers (Vol. ii, f. 19), and 
a woodcut made from this dr.iwing is printed in his Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, ed. 
Birch, 1878, ll, 100 ; it i.s, however, very inacctUMte and the striping of the young animals has been 
omitted. 

5 Herodotu.s, li, 14; Pliny, H.M., xviir, 47; Aelian {Mat. Anim., x, 16) quotes Eudoxus a,s saying 
that it was cu.stomary with the Egyptians to drive swine over newly sown grain that the seed might be 
trodden into the ground and so protected from the ravages of birds. 

® Polyaenus {Strut., iv, 19; refers to herds of .swine in the Memphite province in Ptolemaic times; 
Heliodorus (v, ^8 ; i.Y. 23) speaks of them in the di.striets about the Herakleopolitan (Canopic) mouth 
of the Nile, and at Syene (A.swan). An inscription on a wall of the temple at Kalabshah records an order 
of Aureliu.s Besarou of Ombos and Elephantine, that proprietors should “keep their pig.s at a distance 
from the temple” (Greek text, L., it., vx, 93, No. 379;. Among the papyri from the archives of Zenon there 
are many references to the .sacrifice of pigs on the day of the festival of Arsinoeia, the festival instituted 
in honour of the deified Arsmoe and held in the Arsinoite nome ; .see Edgar in Ann. Serv., xviii, 239. 

' For the tax on swine see MTr.CKEX, Griechische Osfrata aus Aegypten und Eubien, Index under ciki) ; 
Grexfell-Huxt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No.s. 288, 289, etc. ; Hunt, Rylands Greek Papyri, No. 1 93. The .sums 
paid by individuals under this heading in tax receipts show considerable variation ; “this variation,” writes 
Hr. Hunt, “ cannot be explained on chronological or geographical grounds and combined with the evidence 
of WiLCKEN, Ostr., II, 10, 31, gives ground for supposing that the vUi\ was not a licence-charge, but was 
assessed on a ba.sis of number or value.” For swineherds, see Gkenfell-Hunt, Tebtunis Papyri, 47 ; 
and for a pig-merchant, Gkenfell-Hunt, Faytim Towns and their Papyri, 259. Thefts of pigs were 
frequent (Hunt, Piylands Greeh Papyri, No. 134). A tawny-coloured pig in the Fayyhm or in Middle 
Egypt in a.d. 36 is stated to have been valued at 8 drachmae (Hunt, op. cit.. No. 140), and a tawny- 
coloured brood-sow “about to litter” was v'alued at 12 drachmae (Hunt, op. cit.. No. 134), 

® On pig-keeping among the Copts, see Ann. Serv., xi, 162. 

^ In Greek the pig was named av-sj Latin, su-s. According to Curtius, Or. Etyin., Rt. 579, the root is 
to be found in Sanskrit sCl, generare. 



THE PIG AND THE CULT-ANIMAL OF SET 


213 


The pi. is found in Peasant, B. 2, 138. A remarkable variant 

occurs in the tomb of Bebi at El-Kab dating from the period immediately preceding the 
Eighteenth Dynasty. In the New Kingdom the following writings occur: CISC'S;;? Pap. 
Ebers, 82, 14; with ^ determinative, op. cit., 54, 3. In the Eighteenth Dynasty copies of 
the Booh of the Dead (Ch. cxii) we have and Zeitschr. f. dg. 

Spr., LViii, 17*, 20*. In the Ptolemaic Period the word is sometimes written ^ 
(Naville, Mythe d’Horus, Pis. xi, 5, and ix). In another late text the writing “ is found 
(Dujiicheis, Ternpelinschr., ii, 41, 1. 8). 

Another name that was sometimes employed for the domestic animal was ^ ; 

fern. rr-D\ Copt, pip; but this name seems originally to have denoted the wild boar; it 
was also occasionally used for the hippopotamus. In a list of offerings in the temple of 
Eamesses III at Medinat Habu the pig is named but this word has not been found 

elsewhere. 


III. The Pig as a Sacred Animal in Egypt. 

There is a considerable amount of evidence to show that the pig was regarded as a 
sacred animal among the ancient Egyptians. The statement of Herodotus (ii, 47) that 
they held swine to be unclean animals does not militate against this view, for Eobertson 
Smith® has shown that the notions of holiness and uncleanness often touch. Frazer^ 
remarks that ‘'the view that in Egypt the pig was sacred is borne out by the facts 
which, to moderns, might seem to prove the contrary.” He refers to the statement of 
Herodotus that a man had to wash himself and his clothes after touching a pig, and 
says that this fact favours the sanctity' of the animal, for “it is a common belief that 
the effect of contact with a sacred object must be removed, by washing or otherwise, 
before a man is free to mingle with his fellows.” Herodotus (ii, 47) further tells us that 
in Egypt swine were sacrificed to the moon-god and to Dionysus (i.e., Osiris) at the 
season of the full moon; "they then eat the flesh.” Plutarch {De Is., 8) states that 
“those who sacrifice a sow to Typho {i.e.. Set) once a year at fuU moon, afterwards eat 
the flesh.” Aelian {De Nat. Anini., x, 16) remarks that the Egyptians have “a firm 
conviction that swine are particularly abhorrent to the sun and moon,” that they sacrifice 
these animals once a year, i.e., when they hold the annual lunar festival, but on no 
other occasion do they offer them either to the moon or to any' other gods. Aristides 
{Ap., 12), Clemens {Coh., 2) and Cyril {De Ador., i, Migne, tom. 68, p. 189) all refer to 
swine as sacred among the Egy'ptians, and Clemens notes that they were particularly 
sacred with the Thebans and Suites®. We also have important evidence from native 
Egy'ptian sources as to the sacredness of the animal. In the Booh of the Dead, Ch. cxii®, 

' In Geapow, Rdiywse Crkundu/i, Inl -S, there is a similar variant (p^\) in the writing of the 
common plant-name 255 The 5?S^%-plant was connected with Set ; s/-s pw hbsyt tw hH sd Rt; 

“its ay-plant, it is the hair under the tail of Set” (op. cit., 151). It is interesting to note that in the same 
Middle Kingdom text the .ly-plant is a variant of the ^‘j‘\-plaut; “its [a .ship’s] reeds, they are the 
spittle in the mouth of Bebi” {(f "H" j^)- 

Joimxal, III, 10.3, 1. 6: on a Thirteenth Dyna.sty Stela in Turin occurs the personal name 
dav., m, 123). 

2 The Religion of the Semites, 446. 

’’ The Golden Bough ; Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild, ii, 2-5. 

^ Cf. Pyramid Texts, 1521, where we read of Osiris and Isis, Set and Neith ; the latter was the goddess 
of Sais. 

0 Sethe, Die Spruche fUr das Kennen der Seelen der heiligen Orte, Leipzig, 1925. 



214 


P. E. NEWBERKY 


Set is said to transform himself into a black pig. In the same chapter we read of the 
sacrifice of swine, and of swine being an abomination of Horns but the traditional animal 
of Set. In the annals of Sahure*" on the Palermo Stone, Set appears as a hog with 
bristled back^. It is as a pig, a hippopotamus, as is usually said^, that Set is figured 
in the scenes of the Horus myth on the walls of the Temple of Edfu: this will be 
obvious if we compare the figures of the Set-animal as he appears at Edfu with a 
drawing of a hippopotamus (see Figs. 1, 2 and 3). In the inscription on the Metternich 
Stela® it is a white sow that is said to have given birth to the god Min. In a late text"* 
the pig is actually named as the Typhonian animal. 



Fig. I. The pig, figured in the 
temple of Edfu (N'aville, 
Myihe d' Horus, I'l. .xi). 



Fig. 2 . The pig, figured in the temple of 
Edfa (Naville, Mythe d' Horus, P). ix). 



Fig. 3 . The hippopotamus. 


IV. On the Origin of the Domestic Pig. 

The domestic pig, we have seen, was known to the Egyptians as early as 3500 b.c. ; 
we may therefore well ask the question, from what source or sources was it derived? 
The question is important, for the answer to it may be expected to throw some light on 
the early migrations of man. In studying this subject we have to bear in mind that the 
domestic pig is not a pastoral animal, that it does not belong to a people in the pastoral 
stage of civilization. The ox, sheep, and goat can be driven from pasture land to pasture 
land but the pig has to be housed, at all events during part of the year®, and conse- 
quently it must have been first domesticated by people living in a partially-settled 
agricultural condition. Several Greek writers® have, in various ways, remarked on the 
peculiarity of the pig as contrasted with other domesticated animals, in that it is only 
useful when dead, giving neither milk as do the cow and goat, nor wool as does the 
sheep. The pig lives chiefly upon succulent roots and tubers which it digs up from the 
ground with its mobile snout, and on fruits like the acorn and chestnut, and on grain. 

Dr. Jevons'^ gives the following important note on the early history of swine. He 
points out that it was forbidden food to the Hebrews and the facts regarding it seem 
to be as follows; “The swine as a domesticated animal was not known to the undispersed 

^ Schafer, Ein Bruchstiich altiigy fjtischer Aunalen, 36, last vertical liuo. 

2 I iny.self fell into this error in my paper on “The Set Rebellion” printed in Ancient Egypt, 1922, 42. 
Not only i.s the animal figured as a pig, but it also bear.s the name in the important historical scenes 
given in Naville, Mythe cT Horus, Pis. ix, x, xi. 

3 1 , 86 . 

* PlEHL, Inscr. hierogl. (Nouvelle Serie), PL civ, 1. 9. 

See footnote 7 below. 

^ Aelian, Aesop, and Lactantius {cited by Bochart, Hierozoicon, ll, 698) ; this is noted by Rolleston 
in his Scientific Papers and Addresses, ed. Tylor, 1884, ll, 528. 

f F. B. Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religion, 1908, 118, n. 3. 



THE PIG AND THE CULT-ANIMAL OF SET 


215 


Semites or to tlie Sumerian population of Babylon (Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 
261); on the other hand, its flesh was forbidden food to all Semites (Robertson Smith, 
Religion of the Semites, 218). The inference, therefore, is that (1) it was after their 
dispersion that the Semites became acquainted with the swine as a domestic animal, 
(2) it was forbidden food from the time of its first introduction and spread amongst 
them. In the next place, (1) the pig can only be housed and reared amongst a settled, 
i.e., agricultural, population, (2) the pig is associated especially with the worship of agri- 
cultural deities, e.g.. Demeter, Adonis, and Aphrodite. The inference again is that, as 
agriculture and the religious rites associated with it spread together, it was in connection 
with some form of agricultural worship that the domestication of the pig found its way 
amongst the various branches of the Semitic race. Finally, the swine (1) was esteemed 
sacrosanct by some Semites, (2) is condemned in Isaiah (Ixv, 4; Ixvi, 3, 16; cf. Robertson 
Smith, op. cit., 291) as a heathen abomination. The inference, then, is that the worship 
with which the swine was associated did not find equal acceptance amongst all Semites. 
Where it did find acceptance, the flesh was forbidden because it was sacred ; where it did 
not, it was prohibited because of its association with false gods.” 

The effects of domestication have been very marked on swine. As regards bodily 
form we have but to contrast the long-legged, long-headed, thin-bodied, “greyhound 
pig” of Ireland with some of the best modern breeds, to see how enormous is the 
difference in this respect. In studying all domesticated breeds of animals it must be 
borne in mind that domesticated breeds often die out; Darwin in his Variation of Plants 
and Animals under Domestication, i, 96, has noted, for iustance, that the Berkshire breed 
of pig of 1780 was different from that of 1810, and that since that period two distinct forms 
have borne the same name. Besides the great difference in bodily form there are also 
marked differences in the shape of the ears; in some breeds they are large and pendent, 
while in others they are small and erect. In practically all breeds the tusks of the boars 
are small and very different from those of all wild species at present existing; in this 
respect Lydekker^ remarks that we have a “reversion to extinct species of swine, in the 
earlier forms of which the tusks are but slightly developed.” 

Zoologists are not agreed as to the origin of the various breeds of domesticated swine 
and many different views have been expressed by different writers. Some consider that 
certain of the earlier races found in Europe had an eastern origin. Others hold to the 
view that all breeds are descended directly from the European Wild Boar {Sus scrofa v. 
ferns). Others again believe that the original domesticated races of different parts of the 
world have been derived from the wild species inhabiting the same districts. A large 
number of the species of the genus Sus have been described, but Lydekker in his 
Catalogue of the Ungulate Mammals in the British Museum, iv, 306 ff., reduces them to 
seven : 

(1) Sus scrofa, the Wild Boar of Europe, with nine local varieties, the range of which 
formerly included the whole of the afforested districts of temperate Europe from Ireland 
and Scandinavia eastwards throughout temperate Asia north of the Himalayas to 
Szechuan, as well as Africa north of the equator. 

(2) S. cristatus, the Wild Boar of India, with two local varieties ranging throughout 
India, Ceylon, Burma, Siam, and part of the Malay Peninsula. 

(3) S. leucotnystax, indigenous in Japan and Formosa. 

* R. Lydekker, Royal Natural History, London, 1894, 431. 


216 


P. E. NEWBEEEY 


(4) S. vittatus, with twelve varieties, natives of Sumatra, J ava, the Malay Peninsula, 
Great Nicobar Island, and the Andaman Islands. 

(5) S. celebensis, with seven local varieties, ranging throughout the Celebes, Philip- 
pine Islands, Amboina, and Ceram. 

(6) S. verrucosus, of Java. 

(7) S. harhatus, with five varieties, of Borneo, Sumatra, and the Philippines. 

No species of the genus has been found wild in North, Central, or South America, 
and none occurs in Africa south of the equator, in Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, or 
in the South Sea Islands. The domestic pig, however, has now spread over nearly all the 
world except the polar regions where the climate is too cold for it to live. 

In 1860 the German naturalist Hermann von Nathusius published his important 
work Die Racen des Schweines^ in which he showed that all the various breeds of 
domesticated pig can be divided into two groups, one resembling in all respects the 
Wild Boar of Europe, the other differing in several important and constant osteological 
characters. This latter group he believed to be descended from an eastern type now only 
known in a domesticated condition. The name that has been given to this group is 
Sus indicus in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that the wild aboriginal ever 
inhabited India. Charles Darwin, in his Variation of Plants and Animals under Domesti- 
cation, 84, notes that after reading the remarks of Nathusius “it seems to be playing with 
words to doubt whether S. indicus ought to be ranked a^ a species, for the differences 
are more strongly marked than any that can be pointed out between, for instance, the 
fox and the wolf, or the ass and the horse.” ‘'Sus indicus,” Darwin goes on to say, “is 

not known in the wild state, but its domesticated forms come near to S. vittatus 

and some allied species The Koman or Neapolitan breed, the Andalusian, the 

Hungarian, the ‘krause’ swine of Nathusius inhabiting south-eastern Europe and 
Turkey, and the small Bundtner swine of Rutimeyer, all agree in their more important 
skull-characters with S. indicus. Pigs of this form have existed during a long period on 
the shores of the Mediterranean, for a figiure closely resembling the existing Neapolitan 
pig was found in the buried city of Herculaneum 2 .” There has been much speculation 
among zoologists as to what the unknown wild parent of the Sus indicus group of pigs 
was like. In 1875 Professor Rolleston contributed a paper to the Linnaean Society “On 
the Domestic Pig of Prehistoric Times in Britain,” and in this paper he gathered together 
most of the material that was then available on the history of the domestic pig in 
general^. Regarding the parentage of the Sus indicus group, Rolleston considered that 
S. vittatus, S. leucomystax, and S. tavianus all ha\"e very strong claims, “in days sufficiently 
far off to have allowed the tendency to striping of the young to become eliminated.” 
With regard to the swine of prehistoric Britain he believed that it would be unsafe to 
postulate any other parent stock than S. scrofa v. ferus', but he adds “such is the 
diffusibility and transportability of Sus that it is not impossible, nor inconceivable, that 
the domestic European pig, even in the Stone Age, may have had an Asiatic or African 
origin.” Rolleston, however, omitted one important line of investigation; he did not take 
into consideration any of the feral or semi-feral pigs of those parts of the world where 
there are no native species for the domesticated animal that has run wild to breed with. He 

• See also his Schicei/ieschadel, Berlin, 1864. 

^ Antic/iita di Ercolano, Napoli, 1767, tome li, 71 ; Salomon Rein.\ch, Repertou-e de In statuaire 
grecque et romaine, tome II, 747. 

^ Linnaean Society’s Transactions, Second Series, Zoology, x, 1876; reprinted with many additions in 
his Scientific Papers and Addresses, 1884, 518-64. 



THE PIG AND THE CULT-ANIMAL OF SET 


217 


did not take into consideration the remarkable fact that even in Europe domesticated 
swine when left to run wild for many generations have never been known to revert to 
the Wild Boar (S. scrofa) type. In the woods of Norway and Sweden the feral pigs, 
though dangerous, can always be distinguished from the Wild Boars which range the 
same woods In the north Highlands of Scotland the pigs are left almost in a state of 
nature and are allowed to search undisturbed for their food, yet these creatures, although 
they acquire a wild and grisly aspect, never assume the characters of the Wild Boar; 
they remain gregarious, the male continuing with the herd and never betaking himself 
to a solitary lair. Many of the swine of South America, carried thither by the Spaniards, 
have escaped into the woods, but they have not become Wild Boars and remain in 
herds. The pigs which have run wild in Brazil have not reverted to the Wild Boar 
type^. The feral pigs of the New Zealand swamps are not at all like the Wild Boars of 
Europe. Feral swine throughout the world become long and lean in the body with 
remarkably long head, the ears are large and pricked, and the tails that they carry are 
not tufted like those of the Wild Boar of Europe but have lateral hairs at the end which 
give them the appearance of plumed arrows. No wild animal answering to this descrip- 
tion is now known, but such a creature is figured on the ancient monuments of Egypt, and 
this animal actually bore the name S Aa' sf — the name that was given to the domestic 
pig. This animal is generally known as the cidt-animal of the god Set; it is usually 
supposed to be a fabulous creature but in one ancient text it is stated to be a denizen 
of the marshes®, and it is figured with other wild animals in a desert® hunting scene. 
I believe that in this Egyptian animal we have the original species of Sus from which 
the domestic pig has been mainly derived, — in other words this Egyptian animal is the 
Sus indicus of Nathusius. 


V. The Cult-Animal of Set. 

At a first glance this Egyptian cult-animal, as it is figured on the monuments from 
the Pyramid Age onwards, looks like a greyhound (see Fig. 4), but the greyhound-like 
appearance is characteristic of semi-feral and feral swine throughout the world. 

1 Low, Domesticated Animals of the Dcitish Islands, 409. 

- J. R. Rexugeb, Satargeschichte dee Saugetkiere van Paraguay, B.isel, 16.30, :331. 

3 QriBELL, Excavations at Su'iqara, 1906-07, 50; Newberry, Beai Hasan, ii, Pis, iv and xiii. A pair 
of these animals are .sometimes figured on Egyptian monuments with the i>’)6-foxes towing the boat of 
Horakhuti (Pleyte, Set dans la hacqae du soleil, t.rv, 1 ; cf. L.vxzone, Dis. mit., PI. ecclx.txii) ; also on 
a Ptoleniaio saroophagu.s publishc<l in the Ann. Sere., xvir, 20, wliere they are called The same 

animals are mentioned together with the .s/^-auimals in the Pup. Mag. Harris, v, 4, where they are called 

* On the fijrmer identification.s of this creature see below under vii. p, 223. 

“ Qcibell, op. cit., 50. 

8 Newberry, B . IL , ii, Pis. iv and .xiii. It may appear strange to find a swamp-loving animal figured 
in a desert wady but there are .several records of wild pigs going out into desert country, e.g., Tristhaji, 
Natural History of the Bible, 54 and 145; C. F. Tykwhitt Drake in Nature, 1871, May 18, p. 52, notes 
that he wa.s much surprised to find traces of recent uprooting by wild boars in the Wadi Rakhamah in 
the Desert of Tib. “This place,” he says, “is far away from water except what may be collected in hollow 
rocks, and can boast of no cover.” Tristhaji, Fauna and Flora of Palestine, 3, remarks that the wild 
boar “ extends into the bare wilderne.ss, even where there is no cover, nor other food than the roots of 
desert bulbs.” In the desert between Hamah and Palmyra, Giovanni Pinati saw’ on June 9th, 1816, “a wild 
sow with her four younglings ; they were the only living objects that were seen, for it is a verv drearv 
desert” (W. J. Baske.s, Narrative of the Life and Adventures of G. Finati, London, 18.30, ii, 177). 

Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


28 



218 


R E. NEWBERRY 


Livingstone^, writing of the pigs of the Portuguese settlers at Senna on the Zambesi, 
records that the village had a “number of foul pools, filled with green fetid mud, in 
which horrid long-snouted greyhound-shaped pigs” wallowed with delight. When Captain 
Cook visited the Fiji Islands towards the middle of the eighteenth century he found that 
the domestic pig was unknown to the islanders, and he left a pair on Vavau Island. The 
descendants of this pair have since led a semi-feral existence and have become “long- 
legged, lean, sharp-faced, and like in appearance and agility to greyhounds-.” In Man- 
churia the semi-feral pigs have assumed the greyhound-like shape®. In the West of 
Ireland there was till a few years ago a famous breed that was known as the Old Irish 
Greyhound Pig^. This animal is described as having been a tall, active-looking creature 
with very long head, large ears, long thin body, and long legs. Pigs similar to the Irish 
breed still roam the heaths of Jutland®. The descendants of the domestic pig that was 
introduced into Brazil by the early Portuguese settlers have reverted to this greyhound- 
like type®. Greyhound-shaped semi-feral swine have also been observed in the Pyrenees’, 
in Italy, and in Greece®. 



Fig. 4. The cult-animal of Set. 



Fig. 5. The cult-animal of Set, 
from a M. K. monument at 
Lisht. {A.Z., XL\!. yo.) 



Fig. 6. The j/ziz-animal in the 
tomb of Sekerkhabau. Cairo 
Museum. (.Murk.-\y, Sut/qara 
Maslabns, I, PI. w.Yviii, 24 .) 


It is not only in its greyhound-like appearance that the Set-animal resembles feral 
or semi-feral swine. There are other points of similarity that are very striking. 
A remarkable feature of the Egyptian cult-animal is its tail, which is always shown 
erect and rigid, even when the creature is seated on its haunches (Fig. 6) or is lying 
down (Fig. 6). All specimens of the family Suidiae have this habit of erecting the tail 
when they are in any way irritated; even our own domestic pig will often uncurl its tail 
and erect it if angered. Lydekker* says of the members of the pig family that if excited 
they carry their tails straight upright. On the Egyptian monuments the tail of the Set- 
animal is usually depicted like a feathered arrow (see Figs. 4 and 5). Many of the 
feral pigs of Jamaica, derived it is said from a Spanish stock, have tails like a plumed 
arrow 1®. P. H. Gosse“ records that a Mr. Johnstone of Portland, Jamaica, told him that 


' D. and C. Livingstone, Xarraiire of un Expedition to the Zanihed, London, ISB.o, 152. 

- Tho}’ were so described by the late Rev. A. L. Cortie, the Astronomer of Stonyhur.st College, in a 
letter that he kindly wrote me in answer to an enquiry about the descendants of Capt. Cook s pigs. 

From information given me by Mr. J. R. Hughes of Bi'adford, who re.sided for many years in 
ilanchui'ia. 

^ On thi.s breed see the paper by R. F. SoharfF in the Irish Eatura/ist, 1917, 175 ff. 

J H. Thiel, Die Entmickeluiuj der Schiceinezucht in Ddnemark in LandwirtschuftUche Jj.hrbticher, xxxv 
{Ergnazungsh. ll), Berlin, 1906, .33. 

® From information kindly given me by Mr. R. F. Scharff in a letter dated Wicklow, Oct. 1924. 

‘ My authority for this .statement is Profes-sor Percival of Reading University. 

^ I have myself noticed these pigs in Italy and in Greece. 

** Royal Xatural History, ll, 441 ; note also D. Low, The Breeds of Domestic Animals of the British 
Islands, London, 1842, ii, .398. 

C. TJarwix, Plants and Animals under Domestication (od. 1905), i, 95. 

" P. H. Gosse, a Naturalists Sojourn in Jamaica, London, 1851, .386 ; the italics are Gosses. 






THE PIG ANH THE CULT-ANIMAL OF SET 


219 


he had seen many of these swine with & feathered tail. The tail of the Wild Boar of India 
{S. eristatus) is described by Captain Thomas Williamson ^ as being armed near the tip 
with stiff lateral bristles giving it the resemblance of the wings of an arrow. The large 
erect ears are also very distinctive of the Egyptian cult-animal. Many breeds of swine 
have huge ears which, though generally pendent, can be raised immediately the animal 
is alarmed. I have raised many hundreds of pigs of various breeds on my farm in Kent 
and have been much surprised to see the power that they possess of erecting their ears 
when startled. The feral swine of New Zealand and of Jamaica are described as having 
large prick-ears. 

Furthermore the Egyptian cult-animal is figured with longitudinal stripes of dark 
and light colour along the body^ (see Fig. 5). This longitudinal striping is charac- 
teristic 3 of the young of all the wild representatives of the pig family, though it generally 
disappears under domestication. Mr. Winlock recently sent me a photograph of a 
small model pig with striped body that he found in the tomb of an early Eighteenth 
Dynasty vizier^ at Thebes; this he has kindly allowed me to reproduce here (PI. xviii, 
fig. 2). In the tomb of Inena® at Thebes (No. 81) not only are the very young pigs 
represented with longitudinal striping but we see it also in the animals of a more mature 
age (see PI. xix, fig. 1); it appears also on young pigs figured in the tomb of Nebamon 
(Thebes No. 24, date Early Eighteenth Dynasty, PI. xLx, fig. 2). The long-snouted 
greyhound-like pigs which Livingstone® saw in the Portuguese settlements on the Zam- 
besi sometimes had young that were striped; he speaks of a litter at Senna which was 
“ beautifully marked with yellowish brown and white stripes alternately, and the bands, 
about an inch broad, were disposed, not as in the zebra, but horizontally along the 
body.” The feral pigs of Jamaica^ and the semi-feral pigs of New Granada^ are said to 
have resumed this aboriginal character and produce longitudinally striped young. Longi- 
tudinal striping has also been observed with the young of Turkish®, Westphalian®, and 
Indian “ domestic pigs. Very rarely does it appear with our own domestic breeds in this 
country but it has occasionally been noticed 

' Orie/ifrd Field Sports, London, 1807, 2-2. For a figure of a pig with a feathered tail see AV. H. Flower 
and R. Lydekkf.r, Intniductiou to the Study of ManVinots , London, 1891, 286. A genus very closely allied 
to Sus is the Potnniochoenis (rdver Hogs). There are only two .species helonging to this genus : (1) the 
We.st African Ri'd River Hog (/'. pfireus), and (2) the Xyasa Bush Pig (P. ('h«eriipotit,nus nyasae). The 
first is rcniarkahlo for its vivid colouring and ‘'feathered’ tail. The young of hoth .species present the 
.striped character of the true Sus. 

- In the tomb of King Setuakht in the Biban el-Muluk at Thelies tlic Set-animal is coloured green 
with black stripes (see L., J)., Te.et, III, 212); I have carefully e.vamined all the e.vamples in this tomb and 
find that the striping was nut along the body, but merely marked the reticulation of the ribs of very loan 
animals. 

3 P. L. ScL.VTEB, Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1861, .390 ; W. H. P’lower and R. Lydekker, 
op. cit., 285. 

* The vizier’s name was luy; he is mentioned on a stela in Vienna (Xo. 117), cf. Rec. true., ix, 62. His 
scarab-seal i.s in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Xew York (Newberry, Scarabs, PI. si, 2, p. 125). 

See note 4 on p. 212. ® Livixgstoxe, op. cit., 152. 

'i C. I).vRWix, op. cit., 94; Gosse, op. cit., 380; H.vmiltox Smith, Xaturalist’s Library, ix, 83. 

s Rollestox, op. cit., 542. 

^ H. U. Richardson, Domestic Figs, London, 41. 

*0 Rolleston, op. cit., 553. 

“ Commander W. AVard Hunt, the owner of the Islip Herd of Pedigree Middle AVhites, tells me that 
many newly born Middle AVhites have horizontal stripes along the sides and back. 


28—2 



220 


P. E. NEWBERPtY 


VI. The God Sha. 

Upon the sacred perch the s^a-animal forms the standard of the Xlth or Hypselite 
nome of Upper Egypt (PI. xviii, fig.' 1). As a hieroglyph the creature standing (Fig. 4), 
seated on its haunches (Fig. 5). or lying down (Fig. 6) is an ideograph of the god Set. 
On sealings of wine-jars^ of the Archaic Period (Figs. 7-11) there is sometimes represented 
a male deity with human body and the head of the .sAa-animal; he wears the White 
Crown and holds in his hand the zm.s-sceptre. His name is written 1=3 .0 or 

(Figs. 7-11). He was the tutelary deity of Perabsen and appears with prominence under 
that king’s successor Khasekhemui; he is found again with Xeterkhet (Zoser) and 
possibly also with Hetepsekhemuih All these representations of the god are found upon 
the seals of wine-jars; nearly three thousand years later the god Sha was still the good 
genius of the vineyard h and later still, in the time of Diodorus (iv, 1), “Typhon” (i.e., 
Set) “was not only worshipped in the temples in the cities, but in the fields and villages 
where he is reputed guardian and keeper of the vineyards and orchards.” 

In the Old Kingdom this deity appears in the mortuary temple of SahurefS (see 
Fig. 12) but he is there figured with human head and is described as “Lord of 

Tehenu-land,” showing that he was connected with the west of Egypt, that he was, 
indeed, the god of the Libyans. In the inscription by his side he says that he brings to 
King Sahurer “all good things that are in foreign (Libyan) lands.” He is accompanied 
by the Goddess of the West, who gives the king the “princes of Tehenu-land 

(and all other) lands (of the West).” 

In a New Kingdom tomb at Der Rifah'’, where lies the cemetery of the metropolis 
of the Hypselite nome, there is a prayer to a god named >inv, who is certainly 

identical with the earlier S) The capital of the Hypselite nome was 

Shashotep, ujwth, the modern Shuteb; Greek, Hypselis, rhy-p-s] this name can only 

‘ The sealings upon which the name .ind figure of thi.s god appear have been, for the most part, 
inaccurately publi.shed. I have examined specimens of all the .scalings, e.xcoiit the one of Hetepsekhemui 
figured in A?in. Serv., ni, 187, and find that the g<xl in every ca.so wears the White Crown and has the 
curved head of the ^/la-animal (.see Figs. 7-11). In two c.xamples (.1. de Moroax, Recherches, 243, 
Fig. 816 ; Gahstaxg-Sethe, ilnhasnu and D^.t KhnUaf, I’l. ix, p. 22) the name of the deity has been misread 
Horakhuti, instead of The form appears on sealings of Perabsen (Petrie, R.T., il, 

PI. xxii, 178=Cairo Museum, Xos. 112.38-9, 11240-3 and others) and Kha.sekhemui {R.T., ii, PI. xxiii, 199; 
AxikniXEAU, A./'., il, 301, 3: J. he MoRu.tx, Recherches^ 244, Fig. 819 = Cairo Museum, Nos. 11149-50, 
11173-4, etc.), is found on .sealings of Perabsen {R.T., ii, PI. xxii, 179; Am^lixeau, N.F., lii, 

PI. XX, l-4 = Cairo Museum, No.s. 11238-9, 11240-3 and others), of Khasekhemui {R.T., il, PI. xxiii, 200; 
Amelixeau, N.F., II, 301, 1 ; J. HE Moiigax, Recherches, 243, Fhg. 816 = Cairo Museum, Nos. 11126, 
11132, 11174, etc. !, of Xeterkhet (Gahstang-Isethe, op. cit, PI. ix, 4), 

- On metathesi.s, .see Lacau in Rec. true., xxv, 139. Shorter in Journal, xi, 78, has an interesting note 
on a late representation of the god ’Ash=Sha. 

3 On one of his seals apjiear the name and figure of a deity ; I should read j^'=' with the figure of 
the god standing {Ann. Here., ill, 187 ; Bull, de Vhutitut egyptien, 4® serie, 107-16, No. 20; Maspeeo, 
Etudes de raythologie, vii, 257 ; R. Weill, Annales du Musee Ouimet, xxv (1908), 155, 2 b). 

G. Lefebvre, Recueil ChampwlUon, Paris, 1922, 81. 

^ Borchardt, Das (Jrahdenhnal des K. SahureC, il, PI. 1, p. 74, 

® Griffith, Hint and Der Rifeh, PI. 18, line 68. 



THE PIG AND THE CULT-ANIMAL OF SET 


221 



Fig. 7. Sealing of Perabsen (Cairo Museum, Fig. 8. Sealing of Neterkhet Zoser. 

Nos. 11238-11243, etc.). 

















222 


P. E. NEWBEERY 


mean “(the city) pacifying (the god) Sha^,” and suggests that Sha was the original deity 
of the locality, although from the Old Kingdom onwards to Roman times Khnum^ was 
the chief deity of the place. 

Sha, Shau, the god of Shashotep, is also identical with Shay, the god of Destiny. 
In a note on Khnum in Journal, xii, 226, Griffith remarks that he was the chief god of 
Shashotep, “where Shau {sic Psais, De.stiny) was appropriately associated with him as a 
subordinate deity.” Shay was god of Fate as well as of the vineyard and harvest. His 
name frequently occurs in Egyptian inscriptions. At El-‘Amarnah®, Akhenaten is the 
shay who gives life. In late texts^ “his shay” is sometimes substituted for “his ha,” 
and in an Eighteenth Dynasty tomb at Thebes there is an inscription® which reads 
“bringing all kinds of good things for Amenemhet [the owner of the tomb], and for his 

ha, for his sha,...iox his ahhu,...a.nA for all his modes of being.” It is interesting to 

note that in this inscription shay-f is written 255 and that the last two signs have 
been written over a deleted ^ which can be clearly seen in the original. I may remark 
here that it is a rule in totemism — and Egypt, as Sir James Frazer has truly said, is 
“a nest of totemism” — that when a clansman dies he is supposed to join his totem and 
to assume the totem’s form. It was for this purpose that the numerous “ Transformation 
Spells” which are found in the Coffin Texts® and in the later Booh of the DeacP were 
composed; these spells were written to enable a man to change himself into his totem, 
whether it was an animal, or a plant, or an insect, or an inanimate object. To secure 
himself fully he composed the spell® whereby a man may change into “anything that he 
desires.” In the tomb of Paheri® at El-Kab there is a very interesting text which bears 
upon this subject, “0 excellent satisfier of the heart of his master,” it runs, “mayest 
thou go in and out, thy heart enlarged, in the favours of the lord of gods; a good burial 
after a long life of honourable service: when old age comes and thou arrivest at thy 
place in the coffin and joinest the earth in the necropolis of the West, becoming a living 
0! may it enjoy bread, water, and breath, may it make its transformations 
into a 12^'% heron, swallow, 44^ hawk, or egret, as thou desirest.” 

Much has been written upon the meaning of the words U, etc., but in my view 

they were originally .only local names of the totems into which the men of different clans 
passed at death. Later the original meaning was forgotten and the Egyptians began to 
regard the words as denoting distinct entities, hence the plurality of souls ! 

' In a Hymn to Osiris on a toiiili-^tone of the Eivhtoentli Dynasty in Paii.s Osiri.s is said to be 
“very terrible in Shashotep” (ERJ[.\X-Hr..\('KJlAX, T/ie Litenitiire of t/n- A/lciiii(( Eyyptianx, 141). There 
was a iilaee in Xubia named ^'hasche/yt, “tthe city) terrifying Sha.” Here it was that 

Horu.s overtook and defeated the Companions of Set, at the time of the great Set rebellion. I pointed this 
out originally in Klio, xil, 40^; see further on the Set rebellion rny paper in Ancii-iit Egypt, 1917, 44. On 
the situation of Shaseheryt see Sch.vfer, Beitn/ge zur alien Oeschirhte, iv, 152-6. 

- Middle Kingdom, Griffith, op. eit, PI. 16, line 20; New Kingdom, ihid., line 16; Pap. Harris, 
PI. 61a, 14; Ptolemaic periml, Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeh, 33; Mariette, Dendera, iv, PI. 40. 

^ Davies, El Ariiarna, ii. Pis. vii, viii. 

^ tb MiiLLER, Die beiden Totenpapyrus Rhitid, i, 10, d. 14; hieroglyphic to.vt tJi equals pH-f Si 

in demotic text. 

'■ ( Iardixer-Davies, Tonib of Amenemket, PI. xix, p. 99, n. 3. In regard to the determinative of the 
word (which i.s translated “seal of fate”), Gardiner says that he ha.s “no parallel.” 

® LacaC, Te.rtes religien.c. Nos. xvi, xvii, etc. 

" N.aville, Das aegyptische Todtenbuch, I, Chapters 77-89. 

** N.vville, op. cit.. Chapter 76. 

Tylor-Griffith, The Tomb of Paheri, PI. ix, 11. 5-6, p. 29. 



THE PIG AND THE CULT- ANIMAL OF SET 


223 


VII. On the Former Identifications of the Cult-animal of Set. 

The identification of this animal has long been a puzzle to Egyptologists. Many 
scholars have held to the opinion that the creature was a purely imaginary one, that it 
was, like the Sphinx or the Griffin, a compound animal. This opinion was held by 
Champollion {Not. descr., 360), Eosellini {Mon. civ., ii, 218), Lepsius {D., Text, iv, 
778), Borchardt {ZeitscJir. f. dg. Spr., xlvi, 90), Roeder (“Set” in Roscher’s Lexicon 





der griecJi. iind rom. Mythologie, iii, 1165 sq.), and Bbnedite {Journal, v, 227). Pleyte 
{La religion des Pre-Israelites, 1862, 187) thought that it was a degenerate form of an ass, 
but later {Quelques monuments relatifs au dieu Set, Leyden, 1863) he suggested that it 
might be an oryx, and this seems also to have been at one time the opinion of Heinrich 
Brugsch {Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter, 1890, 703, 786), although the latter 
scholar had earlier {Wh. 1422) suggested that it was a greyhound. Erman {Handbook of 
Egyptian Religion, 20) remarked that “the animal by which Set is represented, or whose 



224 


P. E. NEWBERRY 


head he wears, was considered in later times to be a donkey^, although at least it could 
only have been a caricature of one. Probably it was intended for some animal with 
which the Egyptians of historical times were not familiar.” Max JIulleb {Egyptian 
Mythology, 1918, 102-3) suggested that it may have been derived from “ an animal which 
had, perhaps, become extinct in prehistoric times, or that the figure of it had been drawn 
from an archaic statue of so crude a type that it defied all zoological knowledge of 
subsequent artists.” Bekedite (Journal, v, 227) seems to have had a suspicion that, 
although the Set-animal was an imaginary creature, it merely “replaced a real one which 
very early disappeared from the Egyptian horizon, or else subsisted but was unrecog- 
nised.” Maspeeo (Dawn of Civilisation, 1895, 103, 108) thought that it might be the 
fennec (see Fig. 13) or the jerboa (see Fig. 14). Wiedemaxx [Religion, 1897, 117, 221) 
remarks that the head bears some resemblance to a camel’s head, but later (O.L.Z., v, 
220, and Vmschau, 1902, 1002) he identified the animal with the okapi (see Fig. 15), and 
in this identification he has been followed by Eduaed Meyer (Hist, de Vantiguite, ii, 1914, 
86), Breasted (History, 1920, 32), and Gaillard (Bull, de la Soc. d’Anthropologie de Lyon, 
XXII, 1903). Thilexius (Rec. trav., xxii, 216) considered that it represented the long- 
snouted mouse (Macroscelides). Lefebvre (Sphinx, ii, 63-74) identified it with “un chien. 




Fig. 17, The Ass. 


et plus specialenient un levrier,” and Loret (Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xxviii, 1906, 131; 
cf. Bull, de VInst. frang. dti Caire, iii, 20) says “un levrier d’un genre tout special.” 
ScHWEiXFUETH (JJmschau, 1913, 783; Ann. Serv., xiii, 272) thought that it might be the 
Aard Vark (Orycteropus aethiopicus) (see Fig. 16). Von Bissing suggested a giraffe (Rec. trav., 
XXXIII, 18). In 1912 (Klio, xii, 401) I noted that it certainly belonged to the pig family, 
and that it was possibly the Wart Hog. In 1917 (Ancient Egypt, 1907, 44) I again stated 
my belief that it must be a pig of some kind. Daressy had come to much the same con- 
clusion in 1917 (Bull. Inst. /rang, du Caire, xiii, 89 ff.) but he identified the animal with 
the Wild Boar of Europe (Sus scrofa). The grounds on which he made this identification 
are remarkable. “L’idee,” he writes, “que je voudrais soumettre est que le sanglier est 
le veritable animal reprouve. La malfaisance de cette bete dangereuse, farouche, de- 
structrice des recoltes, la rendait bien digne de symboliser le genie du mal et toutes les 
sensations doloureuses; mais vu I’inlluence funeste de son seul aspect on avait decide de 
lui substituer dans les reprfeentations un animal dont tons les caracteres seraient juste 
I’inverse de ceux du Sus scrofa.” 

' 111 Fig. 17 1 give a drawing of a hieroglyph for Set which is found on the Early Middle Kingdom coffin 
of Ankhef from Asyfit which is in the British Aluseum. Here the animal certainly has an ass’s head. 
This is the earliest instance that I know of, of the Egyptians identif^dng the Set-animal with the ass. 



THE PIG AND THE CULT-ANIMAL OF SET 


225 


VIII. The Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in Egypt. 

The Wild Boar [Sus scrofa), Egyptian rri, fern. rrw-t, Coptic pip, 

frequented the marsh-lands of Lower and Middle Egypt and survived in the Delta, 
Fayyum, and Wadi Natrun, till the end of last century. This animal is figured by 
Anderson [Zoology of Egyjpt, Mammalia, PI. Ixiii, 354-5), who states that “so far as is 
known, the wild pig of Egypt does not differ from the typical form of Europe.” 
As a hieroglyphic sign the animal appears on First Dynasty sealings (Petrie, R.T., i, 
PI. xxvi, 60); it is seen also in two early place-names ; — “pig-bane” (Petrie, 
Medum, PI. xxi, end of Third Dynasty), and “pig-destroyer” (Maspero, Trois 

annees defouilles, in Mem. de la Mission arch, f rang, au Caire, i, 191, Fifth Dynasty). 
The wild animal is not represented in any of the hunting scenes of the tombs of the Old, 
Middle, or New Kingdoms, but wild (?) pigs are figured in a marsh scene in a Middle 
Kingdom tomb at Beni Hasan (Newberry, Beni Hasan, ii, PI. xi). In Eoman times 
the animal was hunted in the Fayyum. Among the Greek Papjui in the Eylands 
Library at Manchester is a letter [Pap. No. 238) written in a.d. 262, by one Alypius to 
his steward, relating to a boar hunt. The steward is instructed to supply the huntsmen 
and their animals with “everything that they are accustomed to receive so that they 
may hunt with zeal.” In the first half of the eighteenth century a.d., Dr. PococKE 
[A Description of the East, London, 1743, i, 17) notes that he was informed that about 
the convents of the Wadi Natrun there were a great number of Wild Boars. According 
to Col. Flower [ap. Anderson, op. cit., 354) a few specimens still survived in that 
locality towards the end of last century, and he says that steps were being taken to 
preserve them there. Sir Gardner Wilkinson [Modern Egypt and Thebes, 1843, i, 446) 
states that in the first half of the nineteenth century Wild Boars were numerous in the 
marshes near San (Tanis) and also about Nader on the east bank of the Nile. They 
were also to be found in many other parts of the Delta, particularly in the low marsh- 
lands to the north, and about Lake Menzldah as well as in the Fayyum. Wild Boars 
were frequently seen about thirty years ago in the neighbourhood of Damietta; the 
natives used to shoot them and bring them into the town slung across a donkey’s back. 
They were obtained from the marshy ground to the west of Farascon, not many miles 
from Damietta. Between Eessendila and Lake Burlos it is also said that many were to 
be seen (Anderson, op. cit., 354)^. 

1 [The Editor regrets the long delay, due to lack of space, in the publishing of this article, the 
manuscript of which was received in October, 1927.] 


Joum. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 


29 



226 


EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM UNDER GREEK 
AND ROMAN RULE^ 

By J. GRAFTON MILNE 


The conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander of Macedon brought Egypt, for 
the first time in its recorded history, under a European ruler. Invmders of various races 
had broken into the Nile Valley in previous generations, from East, West, and South; 
and some of them had established them.selves there for considerable j^eriods: but the 
country was always secured again-st attack from the North by the impassable barrier of 
the Delta marshes; and it was not till the Greeks- had captured Western Asia that they 
could get hold of Egypt. They were not entirely unknown there; trade had been carried 
on between Egypt and Greek countries at several periods; during the centuries when 
Crete dominated the Levant, there is much evidence of intercourse between Crete and 
Egypt; when the centre of Greek power had shifted to Mycenae, the cities of Greece 
proper are shown by finds to have kept up the communication; and when a new Hellas 
was developing itself by colonial expansion, the leading mercantile cities joined in the 
establishment of a depot in Egypt at Naukratis. But the influence, moral or material, 
of these traders on Egypt was negligible; they simply went for business, or at most 
travelled up the country to see the sights as tourists®; the fragments of the so-called 
wisdom of the Egyptians found in Greek writers before the time of Alexander show no 
real knowledge of Egyptian life or literature, and even a keen observer like Herodotus 
reported nothing but external appearances and superficial talk; while there is no trace 
on the Egyptian side that any native knew or cared anything about Greek ideas. 

The establishment of a Greek kingdom in the country, therefore, presented an 
entirely novel set of problems. None of the alien dynasties which had ruled Egypt, 
in all probability, was so totally distinct in its mentality from the Egyptians as the 
Greek; yet, if Greek rule was not to be a purely military domination, it was necessary 
for some kind of fusion of Greeks and Egyptians to be effected; and the whole policy of 
Alexander, in the organization of his empire, was aimed at securing such a fusion of 
races in each province — in other words, at the Hellenization of the Near East. His early 
death left his organization little more than a sketch; but Egypt had the fortune, in the 
division of his empire among his generals, to fall to the lot of one of the shrewdest, who 
had been with Alexander during his stay in Egypt and may well have been his con- 
fidant in the plans which he made for dealing with the country; and it is most likely 
that the scheme adopted by Ptolemy son of Lagus was essentially an embodiment of the 
ideas of Alexander^. 

1 A lecture delivered to the Gla.sgow and Edinburgh Egyptian .Societie.s in November 1927. 

For the purposes of thi.s paper, Macedonian.^ are regarded as Greeks. 

3 This applies equally to Greek mercenary soldiers .serving in Egypt. 

* It had many point.s in common with the .scheme of Seleucus in Syria, which sugge.st a common source. 



EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM UNDER GREEK AND ROMAN RULE 227 


Ptolemy’s leading principle was “peaceful penetration’’: he made no display of 
armed force. There was one great military settlement, but it was planted in a position 
chosen with notable skill, in the oasis of the Fayyum, which, while it commands the great 
artery of traffic at the head of the Delta, and forms a salient for protecting the Western 
frontier, is outside and shut off from the main valley of the Nile, so that the soldiers 
there would be unobtrusive. The two centres of Greek life, which were to be the nuclei 
for the Hellenization of Egypt, were Ptolemais in Upper Egypt and Alexandria on the 
coast — both essentially civilian foundations, organized on the Greek model as self- 
governing cities. In none of these three cases was there any substantial expropriation 
of the natives: the soldiers in the Fayyum were settled on newly-reclaimed marsh-land: 
Alexandria grew up on a ridge of sandbanks, previously occupied at most by a few 
fishermen’s huts: and the village of Psoi, which had stood on the site of Ptolemais, was 
so insignificant that it has left nothing but its name. 

From these centres the light of Greek culture was to permeate Egypt. But Ptolemy 
proceeded warily on his way in introducing Greek ideas: his treatment of the religious 
system may be taken as typical. There was no interference with the Egyptian worship — 
such action would have been contrary to Greek practice: the natives were free to, and 
did, continue the customary rites of their ancestors in the old temples, the king assumed 
the traditional position of the Pharaohs in relation to them, and a rather haphazard identi- 
fication of Egyptian with Greek divinities helped to suggest a community of interests. 
But the keynote of the Ptolemaic plan is to be found in the introduction of a new cult, 
which contained both Egyptian and Greek ideas, and, adopted as the official State 
worship, was no doubt intended to supersede all minor deities. This was to be provided 
by the invention of Sarapis — a really remarkable event in religious history, when a 
committee of scholars sat down and compounded a god out of elements derived from 
various nations and religions and selected to suit the needs of the moment as they 
understood them: Sarapis, with his consort Isis and their child Harpokrates, was to be 
attractive to Greek and Egyptian alike, and to form the bond of religious union. At the 
same time this measure gave the State a chance of controlling the Church without 
upsetting established interests; the new worship could fitly be placed under the ad- 
ministration of Royal officials, while the old foundations could be left to themselves, in 
the hope that they would fade before or be absorbed into the more brilliant novelty. 

However carefully veiled by ceremonies and attributes borrowed from Egyptian 
sources, the Greek spirit was predominant in the original conception of Sarapis, with the 
object, presumably, of drawing those who worshipped him into the Greek circle: and 
similar indirect \vays of Hellenizing the Egyptians wmre found in other quarters. Greek 
was, of course, the official language: and, though there is no trace of compulsion to its 
adoption, and the old language and script continued to be used, it was natural that 
Egyptian boys who wished to make their way in the world should learn Greek, and to 
this end schools were established for them. Greek schools brought with them Greek 
sports, in the form of the gymnasium, and before long this institution appeared even in 
such an eminently Egyptian city as Thebes. The Museum at Alexandria collected 
scientists and engaged them in preparing compendia of Egyptian learning for the benefit 
of the world generally, in a Greek dress. The commerce of Egypt was brought into 
conformity with Greek practice by the adoption of coined metal as a medium’ of 
exchange. Instances of this kind might be multiplied, but these must suffice: we must 
now see what were their results; 

The main features of the scheme of Hellenization had been developed before the 

29—2 



228 


J. GRAFTON MILNE 


death of Ptolemy I in 283 b.c., though some additions to it were made by his son: but 
it was very shortly after this that the first sign of reaction can be found, in a concession 
to Egyptian prejudices in the matter of currency. Ptolemy had based his monetary 
system, in the usual Greek way, on a silver standard, with gold as a metallic ratio for 
higher values, and copper as a subsidiary token-coinage only: but Egyptian merchants 
were accustomed to quoting prices in copper, and evidently objected to the introduction 
of a strange metal, since about 270 b.c. the system was rearranged and the principal 
part of the currency formed of copper, no longer in small coins of the size usual in Greek 
cities, but in huge pieces apparently rated as bullion. This was the first step in a 
process which led, in a few more years, to the recognition of copper as the standard for 
internal currency, while silver took a secondary place. It is significant that the obverse 
type of these big copper coins was the head of a god with local affinities — Ammon — 
whereas the types used previously had been the heads of Alexander, Ptolemy, or 
the Greek Zeus. 

Evidence of the revival of the native race is to be found in the increasing numbers of 
men bearing Egyptian names who are mentioned as holding official positions in and after 
the latter part of the third century b.c. It might be argued that this only shows that 
the Egyptians were profiting by Greek education so as to get into Civil Service or other 
posts: but a measure of the extent to which they brought Egyptian ideas into their 
work is given by a comparison of two great in.scriptions, the decree of Canopus and the 
Rosetta stone, both drawn up under similar conditions by priestly colleges at an interval 
of less than half a century. The first, in 237 b.c., runs much on the lines of a Greek 
decree: the second, in 196, reverts to Egyptian formulae. In both cases the text is 
given in Greek and Eg)'ptian, but in the first the Greek version seems to be the original, 
in the second the Egyptian. Another very significant event was that, when Ptolemy IV 
had to meet an attack from Syria in 217, he raised and incorporated in his army a large 
body of native troops, who played an important part in the defeat of the Syrians at 
Raphia. 

To some extent this native revival was due to the feebleness of the royal house. 
If Egypt was to be brought under Greek influence, it could only be done by judicious 
nursing: so long as the kings were capable — as it may fairly be said the first three 
Ptolemies were — there was a certain spread of Hellenization : but as soon as the race 
deteriorated, which it did very markedly in the next generation, the movement ceased 
and old ideas began to come to the surface again. And not only were the later Ptolemies 
incapable, but, during the latter half of the three centuries for which their house ruled 
Egypt, they were constantly quarrelling amongst themselves : from 180 b.c till the 
Roman conquest, there was nearly always some claimant to the throne awaiting an 
opportunity to upset his kinsman in possession, and ready to adopt any means to 
secure this end. So, as it was naturally the aim of each party to win the support of the 
natives, and the obvious way of doing this was by bribing them with favours and con- 
cessions, the Egyptians profited by the quarrels of their kings. The power and property 
of the priesthood, in particular, increased rapidly: the more influential they became, 
the more important it was to win them over, and the more heavily they had to be paid. 

At the same time it appears that the Greek settlers in Egypt, apart from the 
purely official class, instead of Hellenizing the Egyptians, were themselves becoming 
Egyptianized. So far as they were engaged in farming or trading, their interests were 
much the same as those of the natives : it was no longer any advantage to a man to retain 
Greek nationality and Greek habits, as a link with the government, when the govern- 



EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM UNDER GREEK AND ROMAN RULE 229 


ment was divided against itself and favours were given indiscriminately to anyone who 
would take a side: and, in the natural order of things, the life of the farmers was 
assimilated to the tone of the country where they dwelt. Even in Alexandria, where 
Greek influence should have been strongest, we have the statement of Polybius that, 
when he visited the city in the latter part of the second century b.c., he found that 
the section of the population which had originally been Greek had become a mixed race 
and was no longer truly ttoXltlkov — it did not possess the essential virtue of the member 
of a Greek commimity: and the remarks of Roman writers in the next century show 
that the estrangement from European customs had gone steadily forward. 

The history of Egypt under the Ptolemies is still very fragmentary, but there is 
enough evidence as to the condition of the country in the last years of the dynasty to 
enable us to form some estimate of the extent to which the plan of Alexander and 
Ptolemy I had really affected the natives, when the Romans came in and supplanted the 
Greek government. Of the lower classes of the population, indeed, there is hardly any- 
thing to be said: they were regarded by the Greeks as serfs, outside the scope of 
any scheme for the regeneration of Egypt by Greek ideas and incapable of benefiting 
by Greek culture: they remained as they had always been, mute and inglorious. It was 
the middle and upper classes to whom the apostles of Hellenism had directed their 
attention: and the middle classes at any rate, the farmers and traders, as we have just 
seen, had coalesced to a considerable extent with the Greeks of their own rank and 
formed a mixed Graeco-Egyptian race: but the resultant was more Egyptian than Greek. 
It is true that there was a veneer of Greek learning among them: they spoke and wrote 
Greek — very badly, for the most part, if judged by the letters preserved on papyri — 
and the occasional occurrence of tags from Greek literature suggests that Greek authors 
were read in schools: but the purport and spirit of what they wrote was essentially 
Egyptian. Again, the Greek institution of the gymnasium continued to exist in the 
towns, and officials were chosen to preside over it and provide for its maintenance : but 
there is scant evidence that it was ever used in the Greek manner for the training of 
the body and the practice of physical exercises: it seems rather to have become a sort 
of select club, membership of which conferred a social distinction, and was used 
more as a lounge than for athletics. The best test, however, is to be found in religion: 
and here it is quite clear that the scheme of Hellenization had failed. The new god 
Sarapis, who was to have been the supreme object of worship for Greeks and Egyptians 
alike, had not caught the fancy of either, and, in spite of the attempts of the govern- 
ment to push his cult and the foundation of temples dedicated to him in all provincial 
centres, the evidence of papyri, inscriptions, and artistic representations goes to show 
that Isis and Harpokrates, the more Egyptian members of the triad, were infinitely more 
popular with the mass of worshippers, and Sarapis himself gradually tended to revert to 
the character of Osiris, the original Egyptian consort of Isis, who had been used as one 
of the elements in his composition. Even the great temple of Sarapis at Alexandria was 
invaded by Egyptian ideas, and that at Memphis, which ranked second in importance, is 
shown by a curious group of documents to have been thoroughly Egyptian in spirit as 
early as the middle of the second century b.c.: the papers of Ptolemy son of Glaucias, 
which chance has preserved, reveal him and others, by their names men of Greek blood, 
living a characteristically Egyptian and utterly rm-Greek life as recluses in the temple 
precinct. It is rather remarkable, and a token of the strong Hellenic element in 
the conception of Sarapis, that his worship was more popular at this time outside 
Egypt than in it: temples and guilds of Sarapis were founded at many ports in the 



230 


J. GRAFTON MILNE 


Eastern Mediterranean, and still flourished under the Eoinan Empire, when in Egypt 
itself the god was ignored by the lower classes and only remembered perfunctorily by 
the upper. The really important temples, both in wealth and in popularity, were those of 
the old native deities : as we have seen, the power of their priests increased rapidly under 
the feeble rule of the later Ptolemies, and they maintained a purely Egyptian ritual. 
Several of the great temples now standing, such as Dendera, Edfu, and some of the 
buildings at Philae and Thebes, were erected or reconstructed during the Ptolemaic 
period, and they adhered to the old Egyptian style of architecture and decoration, with 
only slight traces of Greek influence in details of technique, while the inscriptions on the 
walls, in the old hieroglyphic characters, follow the old formulae. In short, the attempt 
to Hellenize Egypt had produced only a superficial result — nothing comparable to that 
achieved in Syria by the Seleucids, where there had been a genuine infusion of Greek 
culture into the minds and lives of oriental peoples: there had been no open nationalist 
opposition to it, but none had been necessary. Ptolemy I, as already suggested, had 
sought to do his work by peaceful penetration, to which the Egyptians had simply 
replied with passive resistance: and the passive resistance had been effectual. 

The Eoman conquest completely changed the situation: the Ptolemaic policy was 
thrown to the winds, and there was no longer any idea of bringing Egypt into the circle 
of European civilization: the sole object of Augustus and his successors was to exploit 
the country as a source of revenue, particularly in the form of corn, which was shipped 
off to Eome and distributed there as an antidote to Eepublicanism. No attempt was 
made to Eomanize the Egyptians, or even to settle Eomans there on any system: 
practically the only Eomans who appeared in the country were civil or military officials 
holding short-term posts, and merchants whose stay was even shorter. It is true that 
there was some infusion of “Eoman citizens ’ among the natives, in the form of veterans 
who were serving in the army of occupation in Egypt when they took their discharge, 
and settled down there: but these soldiers were recruited from all parts of the Empire, 
and were not of a type to raise the level of culture in the districts where they finally 
made their homes. 

The policy adopted by Augustus was one of compulsion pure and simple : the country 
was garrisoned with an army of three legions to keep it quiet, and an elaborate machinery 
was devised for assessing and collecting the ta.xes, which secured that the uttermost 
farthing was squeezed out of the natives. And it was not only the Egyptian fellahin 
who were to be the milch-kine of the emperor: the Greeks too were treated as part of 
the spoils of war and subjected to exactions quite as burdensome as those of the 
Egyptians. At the same time the priests, who, as we have just seen, had recovered 
much of their old influence and accumulated considerable wealth under the later Ptolemies, 
were brought under strict control: their property was confiscated and they had to exist 
on a fixed allowance from the State, thereby losing not only money but position. The 
result was one which commonly follows on persecution: the persecuted cause was 
strengthened, and the Eomans were hardly established in the country when the nationalist 
spirit, which had been quiescent under the Ptolemaic system of toleration, began to 
assert itself, the more effectually because the Greeks, who had already realized to some 
degree their community of interests with the Egyptians, were now more closely linked to 
them in a fellowship of misfortune. 

In fact, the first serious disturbance with which the Eomans had to deal in Egypt, 
after the desultory fighting which went on for two or three years after the conquest, 
was headed by the Greeks of Alexandria, and the circumstances are significant. The 



EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM UNDER GREEK AND ROMAN RULE 231 

immediate object of their attack was, not the Roman garrison, but the Jewish community, 
an important body of merchants, at Alexandria. The Jews had long been established 
there and throughout Egypt, and under the general toleration of the Ptolemies had got 
on well enough with both Egyptians and Greeks. But Augustus chose, for some reason, 
to favour the Jews at the expense of the Greeks: he deprived the Greeks of Alexandria 
of their local powers of self-government by a senate, while he confirmed the Jews in aU 
the privileges they had enjoyed. This, naturally enough, exasperated the Greeks against 
the Jews: when they saw their competitors in business placed in a more favoured position 
than their own, they regarded them as the representatives or the tools of the Roman 
oppressors, and started a series of attacks on them which continued intermittently for 
about a century. References to some of these attacks are to be found in contemporary 
historians: but a much more picturesque, though fragmentary, account has been obtained 
from papyri which contain parts of what have been termed the Acts of the Alexandrian 
Martyrs. This is of course a partisan document, intended to glorify the leaders of the 
Nationalists who suffered death for opposing the Roman emperors: but the noteworthy 
fact, for the present purpose, is that it is the recognized heads of the Greek commimity, 
the gymnasiarchs, who regularly appear as the leaders and spokesmen of the Egyptian 
party and are punished accordingly. It is evident that in Alexandria the fusion of Greek 
and Egyptian interests was practically complete in opposition to the Romans. 

The distribution of parties in Egypt was altered at the end of the first century a.d., 
when the destruction of Jerusalem had made the Jewish zealots into an implacable anti- 
Roman body. The responsible leaders of the Jewish community at Alexandria strove to 
keep their people from a breach with Rome: but they were overborne, and the disastrous 
Jewish rising of a.d. 115, which during three years’ guerrilla fighting laid waste a large 
area of the Nile valley, forced the Graeco -Egyptians in self-defence to side wuth the 
Roman government. But when they had aided the Romans to crush the Jews, they got 
no reward in any alleviation of their burdens : some temporary reductions of assessments 
seem to have been made in places, but the old system remained in force, and ruin 
proceeded apace. 

Half a century later the first great peasant revolt took place: it was not headed by 
Greeks or Graeco-Egyptians, for by this time the Graeco-Egyptian class had been taxed 
into impotence, but by an Egyptian priest — a new and significant phenomenon. For nearly 
a century there had been indications that the national religion was reviving from the 
blow dealt to it by Augustus, but this was the first occasion on which it had provided a 
leader for a popular rising. The course of the struggle was marked by incidents which 
in their fanatical savagery were more Egyptian than Greek: and it is probable that the 
bulk of the rebels were natives, small farmers and labourers who had been driven from 
home by over-taxation and had taken refuge in the marshes of the Delta to live by 
brigandage. Official documents of the period from a.d. 150 to 250 which have been 
preserved are full of reference to the problems of the desertion of the land and the 
growth of freebooting — an analogy to which, as an expression of nationalist spirit, may 
be found in the story of Robin Hood. 

In the turmoil of the third century, it more than once seemed likely that Egypt 
would be severed from the Roman Empire, either as an independent kingdom or as a 
province of an oriental monarchy: and the natives welcomed and supported leaders or 
invaders from any quarter who offered them a hope of deliverance from the yoke of 
Rome. But the military recovery of Rome under Aurelian and Probus reduced Egypt 
to subjection once more, and the reorganization under Diocletian seemed to have bound 



232 


J. GEAFTON MILNE 


the fetters of serfdom more firmly than ever, when a new chance of national develop- 
ment was afforded by the official recognition of Christianity in the reign of Constantine. 

The first way in which the Egyptians who desired to secure freedom from the demands 
of the Empire sought to profit by its changed attitude towards religion was through 
monasticism. The eremitic habit of withdrawal from the world is one which seems 
indigenous in Egypt — something of the kind had been known there centuries earlier — 
and when it became possible for a man who was ruined by the exactions of the govern- 
ment, instead of betaking himself to brigandage, to secure a position which, if not 
exactly comfortable, was at any rate respectable, by merely disclaiming all connexion 
with mundane affairs, the practice of self-dedication to the contemplative life became 
popular so rapidly that in a.d. 373, little more than half a century after the recognition 
of Christianity, the Emperor tried to cheek this practice by edicts. But the hermits 
banded themselves together in monasteries, and these organized communities proved 
powerful enough to defy the Emperor: they became the controlling authorities and 
owners of large districts, in which nearly all the inhabitants were under religious vows 
and paid more heed to the orders of their ecclesiastical heads than to those of the 
government. A well-known instance of the way in which the monks could and did flout 
the representative of the Emperor, even in the capital of the country, is to be found in 
the events leading up to the murder of Hypatia in 415. 

But the nationalist spirit showed itself even more strongly in the organization of the 
Egyptian Church. From the first days when Christianity gained an imperial standing, it 
had been evident that there were fundamental differences on points of doctrine between 
the theologians of Alexandria and of Constantinople — in other words, the Egyptians and 
the Greeks had entirely different philosophies of religion, and worked out their definitions 
of their creeds on entirely different lines. The Emperors, having accepted the position 
of patrons of the Church, were dragged into the controversy: the more prudent of them 
tried to find a way of compromise between the parties, but without success : the breach 
became ever wider, and, as the Emperor at Constantinople was usually ixnder the influence 
of the patriarch of that see, religious bitterness increased the political estrangement of 
Egypt from the Empire. In the middle of the fifth century the Council of Chalcedon 
witnessed the real severance of the Egyptian and the Greek Churches: for some decades* 
after this the history of the Alexandrian patriarchate is an unedifying one of unscrupu- 
lous manoeuvring by both parties, but when J ustinian at last tried to settle matters with 
a high hand, and invested his nominee to the see with temporal powers to maintain his 
spiritual position, the Egyptians flatly refused to have anything to do with him, and 
thenceforward elected a patriarch of their own without regard to Constantinople. 

While the Egyptian Church had been making itself more and more independent, the 
local landowners had also been working out their own salvation. Just as the Emperors 
in the fourth century issued edicts which were intended to prevent the peasantry 
of Egypt from escaping their obligations to the State by placing themselves under the 
wing of the Church as members of religious communities, so they issued other edicts 
against patronage — that is, the practice which was growing up among the smaller 
farmers of making themselves the serfs of a powerful neighbour who was m a position 
to defend them against the exactions of the tax-coUectors and the bullying of the soldiery. 
But the one set of edicts was as futile as the other: in spite of all the imperial efforts to 
check it, the system of patronage grew until in many districts of Egypt the government 
was obliged to recognize these local magnates as the effective rulers of their estates: 
theoretically they acted as the deputies of the Emperor in such matters as the collection 



EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM UNDER GREEK AND ROMAN RULE 233 


of taxes and the maintenance of order: but it would appear that they simply paid over 
a lump sum in respect of the taxes assessed on the villages they administered, like 
tributaries rather than agents : and they policed their lands with armed retainers, who on 
various occasions proved themselves more efficient than the imperial troops and enabled 
their masters to act as independent authorities. These magnates, on the evidence of 
their names, were mainly Egyptian in race, and were clearly Egyptian in sympathies: 
and they entered into a kind of alliance with the national churches, of which they are 
found acting as patrons, in several places. It is instructive to compare them with the 
provincial nobility of the Western Empire, who, in the decay of the central power, had 
been forced to organize their own districts for self-defence against barbarian invasions : 
certainly in Gaul, as to which there is most information, and probably also in Britain, 
the basic idea of these nobles was the maintenance of the connexion with Rome and 
Roman civilization, as contrasted with the desire of the Egyptian lords to cut themselves 
free from it: a notable instance is the attempt of the Gaulish prince Syagrius to uphold 
the cause of Rome against the Franks in the valley of the Seine, and I have little doubt 
that in Britain King Arthur similarly regarded himself as the representative of Rome 
against the Saxons. 

Thus by the end of the sixth century there was not much of Egypt left under the 
effective rule of the Emperor: the country was parcelled out into semi-independent 
estates, somewhat resembling the feudal lordships of mediaeval Europe, interspersed 
with large areas controlled by religious corporations: and, if one of the magnates had 
possessed sufficient genius for leadership of his fellows, Egypt might have achieved its 
freedom. But, before this could happen, the Persian and Arab invasions subdued the 
country and completely swept European control out of it for many centuries, to be 
replaced by a government which, if not Egyptian, was at any rate oriental, and so more 
instinctively sympathetic to Egyptian ideas and customs than any Greek or Roman 
ever was. 

The Roman dominion in Egypt had lasted more than twice as long as the Greek, 
but it made far less contribution to the development of the country : in fact, so far as 
the introduction of European ideas was concerned, its chief result was to undo nearly all 
that the Greeks had done. The Ptolemies had brought Greek settlers into Egypt and 
established Greek institutions : and. though the Greeks did not maintain either their race 
or their culture pure, but fused with the natives into a Graeco-Egyptian class, whose 
customs and ideas were a mixture derived from both sources, the element of Greek in 
the mixture was quite appreciable: the Greek language was established in the educated 
classes as the ordinary medium of communication, and certain Greek habits of life had 
been adopted in the towns : the composite religion too, though the Egyptian traits in 
the conception of the deities became gradually more prominent, preserved a good deal 
of its Greek dress. But Hellenism was an artificial culture — an exotic plant introduced 
to Egyptian soil, which needed to be tended carefully and fed with Greek stimulants, if 
it was to flourish and maintain its specific character: if it was neglected, it could only 
live by assimilating itself to its surroundings. And the Romans did not merely neglect 
Hellenism in Egypt: .they crushed it out of existence: and when a new growth of 
culture appeared, it was very naturally one of a kind indigenous to the country. 

This point may be illustrated by the revival of the national language under the 
Romans. For literary purposes, its use had practically ceased at the time of the Roman 
conquest : it is true that inscriptions in the old hieroglyphic characters continued to be 
cut on the walls of temples — the latest dated one is of a.d. 250— b
Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology Vol.14"

See other formats
